This comprehensive inspection took place over three days. We visited the office location of Fuchsia Homecare (Colchester) unannounced on the 15 October 2018 and announced on the 16 and 17 October 2018. The inspection included visiting people in their homes and phone calls to people, their relatives and staff.

Fuchsia Homecare (Colchester) was first registered in April 2018. This was the first inspection of this service.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. It provides a personal care service to older adults, younger disabled adults, people living with dementia and mental health conditions. At the time of our inspection there were 49 people using the service across Essex and villages between Colchester to Ipswich.

The registered manager had recently left the service. A new manager had been appointed who told us they had submitted their application to register with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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 were not always protected from the potential risk of harm and abuse. Some staff were unaware of the action to take if they suspected abuse. Potential risks posed to people had not been consistently assessed. Whistleblowing guidance was not always available to staff to inform them of the action required to mitigate the risk of harm.

Staff were not recruited safely in accordance with the provider's own policy and procedure. Safety and competence checks had not always been completed before staff were left unsupervised to care for people in their own homes.

Some people's care plans were detailed and gave staff guidance regarding how to meet people's needs. However, care plans were not always available in people’s homes to guide staff when the service started.

Staff had not always received the quality and range of training they required to meet people's needs and equip them for the role they were employed to perform.

People told us the staff were kind and caring and they were supported with dignity when receiving care and support. However, where staff did not have English as their first language people told us communication was challenging and staff did not always understand their needs.

The provider had some effective systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided to people but there was a need for further improvement. Surveys to assess people’s views were carried out. There was a complaints procedure in place, however this was not always being followed. The overall governance from the senior management team had not identified the shortfalls that were found during this inspection.

Systems were in place to audit people's medicine records on a monthly basis but did not include any check of stock. Guidance for staff was not always provided on medication administration records to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

Staff used personal protective equipment to safeguard themselves and people from the risks of infection.

There was a system in place to assess people’s views about the service provide. There was also a policy and procedure for receiving and handling complaints, however this was not always being followed.

People were supported to maintain their nutrition and hydration, if this was part of their package of care. People were supported to maintain their health with support from health care

professionals.

There were enough staff employed to meet people's needs. People were supported by regular members of care staff, providing continuity of care to people.

People were supported to have choice and control of their lives. However, the management team and st