This inspection took place on 14 and 16 November 2018 and was announced.

Everycare Hastings is a domiciliary care agency which specialises in the care of older people living in their own homes. The service provision varied from minimum one-hour visits daily to support people with personal care but they also provided companionship services and home help services.

Not everyone using Everycare Hastings received a regulated activity. CQC only inspects the service received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of inspection, the service provided personal care support to two people.

There was no registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. A manager had been appointed and started in post on 3 September 2018. At the time of inspection, they had yet to apply for registration as manager. However, at the time of writing this report an application had been submitted for processing.

This was the first inspection of Everycare Hastings since registration. The organisation was developing systems to monitor and review the quality of the care provided. The service was small. Systems were still evolving and needed further time to be developed to fully meet their needs. We recommended the owner sought additional support in this area.

People told us they had continuity in the staff that supported them. When their carer was on leave the manager provided support. They liked the consistency offered by the service. They staff always arrived on time and stayed for their allocated time. They told us staff always completed the tasks required of them along with any additional requests. One person told us, their carer was “Like a family member.”

People were supported by staff who demonstrated kindness and had a caring approach. Staff knew people well. A relative told us they had good communication with their relative’s carer and with the office staff.

People knew how to complain if they needed to. They told us they would have no hesitation in picking up the phone if needed. However, one person said, “We have had nothing to grumble about.”

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures and knew what actions to take if they believed people were at risk of abuse. There were thorough recruitment procedures that ensured as far as possible staff were suitable and safe to work with people. As part of the assessment process risk assessments were carried out in relation to people’s homes and to their individual needs and where necessary, actions were taken to mitigate risks to reduce the risk of accidents or injuries.

There were safe systems for the management of medicines. These ensured people received support in a safe way. There was information in support plans about how people liked to take their medicines. Care staff had received training on medicines and the procedures to follow to ensure they were given safely.

Spot checks had recently been introduced to monitor staff performance. Staff attended regular training to ensure they could meet people’s needs. There was a thorough induction to the service and staff felt confident to meet people’s needs before they worked independently. People told us they liked the fact office staff came to check on staff as this meant they cared about them and their staff.

The owner and staff had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA are regulations that have to be followed to ensure people who cannot make decisions for themselves are protected. People’s support plans reflected t