We inspected this service on 20 and 23 November 2017. This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults. Not everyone using this service receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being 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.

This announced inspection was carried out by one inspector and an expert by experience. The expert by experience had knowledge of care services including domiciliary services.

There was a registered manager in the service. 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.

On our last inspection on 8 September 2015 the service was rated as Good; on this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People continued to receive safe care. People were protected from unnecessary harm by staff who knew how to recognise signs of abuse and how to report concerns. The staff were confident that any concerns would be reported by the registered manager. Individual risks were assessed and reviewed to keep people safe and protect them from avoidable harm. Some people received assistance to take medicines and records were kept to ensure that this was done safely. There were enough staff to provide care for people and safe recruitment procedures in place to ensure they were suitable to work with people.

People continued to receive effective care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible. People were able to make decisions about how they wanted to receive support to ensure their health needs were met. Staff were supported and trained to ensure that they had the skills to support people effectively. When people required assistance to eat and drink, the provider ensured that this was planned to meet their preferences and assessed need.

The care people received remained good. People were treated with kindness and compassion by staff who knew them well. People liked the staff who supported them and had developed good relationships. People had a small team of staff who provided their support in the way they wanted. Care was planned and reviewed with people and the provider ensured that people’s choices were followed. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and upheld by the staff.

The service remained responsive. People had care records that included information about how they wanted to be supported and this was reviewed to reflect any changing needs. There was a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to complain and were confident these would be responded to.

The service remained well led. Staff listened to people’s views about their care and they were able to influence the development of the service. Staff felt well supported by the registered manager. The quality of care was assessed and monitored to ensure standards were met and maintained. The registered manager understood the requirements of their registration and informed us of information that we needed to know. The manager promoted an open culture which put people at the heart of the service.

This inspection took place on 8 September 2015. GC Home Care is a domiciliary care service which provides personal care and support to people in their own homes. On the day of our inspection 30 people were using the service.

The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff understood their responsibilities with regard to protecting the people they were caring for from abuse or harm and people felt safe. Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and managed, and people were encouraged as far as possible to maintain their independence.

People’s needs were met and they were cared for by sufficient numbers of staff. They received their medicines as prescribed and the management of medicines was safe.

Staff caring for people received sufficient and appropriate training to carry out their roles.

People were encouraged to make independent decisions and staff were aware of legislation to protect people who lacked capacity when decisions were made in their best interests. We also found staff were aware of the principles within the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA)

People received the support they required to have enough to eat and drink and referrals were made to health care professionals when needed.

People who used the service, or their representatives, were encouraged to contribute to the planning of their care, they were treated in a caring and respectful manner and staff delivered support in a relaxed and considerate manner.

People who used the service, or their representatives, were encouraged to be involved in decisions and systems were in place to monitor the quality of service provision. People also felt they could report any concerns to the management team and felt they would be taken seriously.

We spoke with five people using the service. They told us staff delivered care that met their needs. They were complimentary about the staff and they felt confident changes to their needs would be met. One person said, “They’re good at spotting if things have altered”. Another person said, “If you want something changed, I’m sure [the manager] would do it.”

We spoke with three relatives. They told us their family members received care that met their needs. One relative said, “All of the carers are lovely. They look after [their family member] well.” They told us staff treated their family member with dignity and respect.

People using the service told us they felt safe and also felt their belongings and finances were protected.

We found there were effective recruitment and selection processes in place.

People using the service told us they felt there were enough staff employed by the service to meet their needs. One person said, “I like regular people and I do get regular people.” We found there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

We found staff received an induction, supervision, training and appraisals.

We found that the provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

During our visit we spoke with two people using the service. They told us they knew they had a plan of care and had been involved in the care planning process. They told us staff understood their needs and their needs were met. One person said, “What I’ve had up to now has been very good.” However, they also told us that one staff member did not always follow what was in the care plan when providing support.

We spoke with three relatives. They told us their relatives had care plans and were well cared for. However, we found examples where information recorded in some care records was not appropriately recorded in other sections of people’s care records.

People using the service who we spoke with told us they felt safe. However, we saw that the systems for reporting allegations of abuse to the local authority, police and to the Care Quality Commission were not working effectively.

We saw that some staff had previous criminal convictions. We discussed this with the manager. They were unable to show us evidence that risk assessments had been completed before staff were appointed to their roles.

People using the service who we spoke with told us staff were well trained. However, one person said, “One carer could do with a bit more training.” We also saw that eight out of nine staff had only received supervision once during the year.

We saw evidence that some reviews and audits were overdue.