About the service:

Family Care Agency is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection 26 people were using the service. Everyone using Family Care Agency received personal care.

People’s experience of using this service:

• People told us they felt safe receiving support from Family Care Agency and that staff were kind, respectful and caring.

• Not all risk assessments had the required details to ensure all staff knew how to keep a person and themselves safe.

• The provider did not always follow effective recruitment procedures.

• There were gaps in the registered manager’s knowledge of regulatory requirements.

• Audits were not always effective.

• People told us they had regular carers who arrived on time, however when carers changed, people or their relatives were not told who would be arriving and they would often be late.

• Staff received training appropriate to their role.

• There were safeguarding and whistleblowing policies and procedures in place.

• People were being supported daily to make choices and decisions about their care and support.

• The manager was proactive in liaising with health and social care professionals in ensuring people had access to the healthcare they needed.

• People were supported to be as independent as possible.

• People’s individual and diverse needs had been identified before moving to the service and plans of care had been developed.

• Staff responded to changes in people's needs.

• People, relatives and staff told us they had regular contact with the manager and that they were approachable and friendly.

• The service works with professionals from other agencies such as district nurses, physiotherapists, GP’s and occupational therapists.

Rating at last inspection:

GOOD (report published 7 September 2016)

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection.

Follow up:

Going forward we will continue to monitor this service and plan to inspect in line with our reinspection schedule for services rated Requires Improvement.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

This inspection took place on 19 July 2016 and was announced. This meant we gave the provider 48 hours' notice of our visit because we needed to make sure someone would be in the office to meet with us.

Family Care Agency provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the city of Leicester. At the time of our inspection, there were two people using this service who were supported by three staff.

There was a 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.

The provider had systems in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health and safety and welfare of people who used the service. We saw risk assessments were carried out but these did not always include the detailed guidance staff needed to keep people safe. Staff demonstrated that they understood how to keep people safe. People we spoke with said they felt safe as a result of the care they received and trusted the staff who looked after them.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff understood the procedures they needed to follow to ensure that people were safe. The provider's safeguarding policy required further development to include contact details for relevant external agencies to support staff to keep people safe.

People were supported by the number of staff identified as necessary in their care plans to keep them safe. There were robust recruitment processes in place to ensure new staff were suitable to support people in their own homes.

People were supported by staff who were skilled and knowledgeable about their needs. The provider made sure that staff were provided with training that matched the needs of people they were supporting. The provider was in the process of updating their training matrix to record the training staff had undertaken.

We found that people were involved in decisions about their care. The registered provider followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People had consented to their care and staff asked for permission before supporting people with their care needs.

Staff supported people to liaise with health care professionals if there were any concerns about their health.

People told us how staff cared and supported them with dignity and respect and encouraged them to be as independent as possible.

People's care plans were person centred, detailed and written in a way that described their individual care needs. This meant staff were clear about how people were to be supported and their personal objectives met. These were regularly evaluated and reviewed and updated. People were enabled to reduce the risk of social isolation through staff supporting them to pursue hobbies and interests and go out into the wider community.

People were actively involved in deciding how they wanted their care to be provided in line with their wishes. People told us they were aware of how to raise concerns and were confident their concerns would be responded to by the provider. The provider's complaints policy and procedure was in need of further development to provide clear information for people on how to make a complaint and how their complaint would be managed.

People were confident in how the service was led and the abilities of the management team. There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. People and staff felt they could share their views and opinions and these would be listened to by the management team. The provider and management team used people's feedback and findings of quality assurance to drive the development and improvement of the service.