Friendship care is a domiciliary care service providing a service to people living in their own home. This announced inspection took place on 22 and 24 October 2018. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice that we would be visiting the service because we wanted to make sure staff and people would be available for us to speak with. At the time of the inspection 67 people were using the service.

At our last inspection on the 18 and 22 December 2015 we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

On the first day of the inspection we found that not all the information such as complaints record, staff files and care records were not able to assess. The registered manager told us that records were kept in people homes, but also at small office in addition to the registered address, although these were not personal records. The registered manager arranged for all records to be brought to the registered address as all records relating to the service delivery is required to be kept at the registered address.

People were protected and kept safe by staff who understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to protecting them from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm. Potential risks that staff needed to be aware of when supporting people were clearly outlined, regularly reviewed and updated appropriately. Sufficient levels of staff were made available to meet people’s needs.

Medicine was administered as safely as possible. Care staff followed the medication procedure, completed medicine care plans and recorded medicine administration. We found that care plans had details about medication and how to support people with their care needs.

People benefitted from continuity of staff, to ensure that relationships were built and people did not have to endure different staff for their care. The provider ensured that all new staff were provided with an induction before fully commencing in their role and staff received regular supervision to discuss their performance and development needs.

People’s human rights were respected by staff who worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005

People were supported with their health care need if required. Families were contacted if a person was unwell.

People continued to be supported by a committed and enthusiastic staff team who delivered care with kindness, respect and understanding. Staff built caring relationships with people and could meet their needs sensitively. The service and care staff were aware of people’s equality and diversity needs and endeavoured to meet them.

People were involved in the planning, assessment and review of their care which included people’s preferences and choices.

People knew who to contact if they were unhappy about any aspect of their care.

There was a system in place to manage the service however the records relating to this were not always completed to ensure that the system was effective.

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent. We found that the service was very inclusive. There were good arrangements for involving people who used the service in writing policies and procedures, selecting staff and making decisions about how they wanted their care to be provided.

People’s needs were assessed and care was provided according to people’s agreed plans. People told us that staff provided the care and support they wanted. One person told us about how the staff were good at supporting them. They said of the staff, “They lend a listening ear.”

Staff received frequent training in order to carry out their roles effectively. One member of staff told us, “I have never worked anywhere where there was so much training.”

Staff were well supervised and supported through formal and informal arrangements. All of the staff we spoke expressed enthusiasm for their work and confirmed that their supervisors and managers were accessible.

There were good systems for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service and for making sure that the standards were maintained and improved upon, where possible. These included seeking the views of people who used the service and their representatives.

We looked at the records for people who used the service in Birmingham and Warwickshire. We met several members of staff from both locations and several people who used the service in Birmingham.

We found that people who used this service were encouraged to express their views and to be involved in planning their own care and support. They told us that they were very happy with the care and support they received.

People were supported to live fulfilled lives. Staff helped people to enjoy relationships with people of their choice and to take part in a wide range of activities in their homes and the wider community.

Staff provided care and support to meet people’s individual needs and preferences. The care records were detailed and showed how people’s needs had been met in the way they preferred.

People were supported to live healthy lives. Staff had taken people to appointments and provided advice and guidance to help people to reach healthier weights through exercise and diet.

Staff were well trained and supported in order to provide a good service.

There were good systems to make sure that people were kept safe, including policies and procedures and training for staff. People who used the service told us that they always felt safe. People looked relaxed in the company of staff.

There was a range of checks and reviews to make sure that the high standards of service were maintained and improved on.

People told us they were happy with the support they received and that they were treated with respect and that care staff maintained their privacy and dignity. They told us that care staff completed the care and support they wanted.

People we spoke with were confident that they could raise concerns if they were not happy with the care being received and that they would be listened to.

This inspection took place on 18 and 22 December 2015 and was announced.

The service provides support to people in their own homes within the Birmingham and Warwickshire areas. People using the service typically have learning disabilities and other disabilities. During the past year, the service also started to provide support to people who previously lived in registered care homes operated by the company. These were mostly for people with learning disabilities but included a service for African/Caribbean elders who live in a shared block of flats. The total number of people receiving a service at the time of our visit was 98.

The service has a registered manager. 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.

People using this service told us that they felt safe. There were good systems for making sure that staff reported any allegation or suspicion of poor practice and staff were aware of the possible signs and symptoms of abuse.

People told us that they were happy with the service provided. People told us that they were included in decisions about how their care was provided. People told us about how staff helped them to retain skills and to stay as independent as possible. People told us how managers and members of staff helped them to grow in confidence by providing them with physical and emotional support.

People told us that staff treated them with dignity and respect. Staff working in this service understood the needs of the people for whom they provided care and support. Staff were aware of people's needs arising from their medical conditions.

Staff were appropriately trained and skilled to provide care and support to people. The staff had completed relevant training to make sure that the care provided to people was safe and effective to meet their needs.

The registered manager other managers and staff we spoke with understood the principles of protecting the legal and civil rights of people using the service. We did not find anyone being unlawfully deprived of their liberty. Staff empowered people to participate in their local communities and to voice their opinions in a variety of settings and to relevant agencies.

The managers encouraged feedback from people who used the service, their family members, advocates and professional visitors, which she used to make improvements to the service, where needed.

The registered manager and other managers in the service assessed and monitored the quality of care consistently. In addition to observations and supervision of staff, the managers consulted staff and people using the service to find out their views on the care provided and involved people using the service in decisions about how the service was run.