We inspected this service on 30 January 2017 and the inspection was announced. We gave the provider four days’ notice of the inspection so that we could arrange to visit some people who used the service and speak with staff. Golden Years Limited is a small domiciliary care service providing both personal and domestic support to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were 43 people using the service.

There was a registered manager at 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.

They were the last inspected on 9 December 2015 and were found to require improvement. People’s capacity to make their own decisions had not always been assessed. At this inspection capacity was assessed and staff understood how to support people to make their own decisions, or how decisions could be made in their best interest. At the last inspection the provider did not always ensure that measures were followed to ensure that new staff were safe to work with people. At this inspection, safe recruitment procedures were in place and were followed by the provider.

Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were assessed and plans were in place to monitor people and to assist them in a safe manner. They described how to support people safely, including using equipment to assist them to move. Some people received assistance to take medicines and records were kept to ensure that this was done safely. When people required assistance to eat and drink, the provider ensured that this was planned to meet their preferences and assessed need.

Staffing levels were planned around individuals to meet their needs. Care was planned and reviewed with people and the provider ensured that people and their relative’s choices were followed. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and upheld by the staff who supported them.

Staff were supported and trained to ensure that they had the skills to support people effectively. They understood how to protect people from harm and were confident that any concerns would be reported and investigated by the manager.

People had caring relationships with the staff who supported them. They were supported to eat and drink meals of their choice when appropriate. The provider had built relationships with other health and social care professionals to ensure that people were supported to maintain good health.

People were asked for their feedback on the quality of the service and their contribution supported the development of the service. There was a complaints procedure in place and any received were investigated and responded to in line with it. There were other systems in place to monitor and drive improvement such as audits.

We inspected Golden Years on December 9 2015 and it was an announced inspection. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice to ensure that somebody would be available. In addition we spoke with people who used the service and their relatives on December 15, 16 and 21 2015. Golden Years Limited is a small domiciliary care service providing both personal and domestic support to people who live in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were 33 people using the service. They were last inspected on 17 July 2014 and were found to require improvement in Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well Led.

At our last inspection we saw that the provider did not have consistently effective recruitment procedures in place. At this inspection some improvements were needed to ensure that the provider gathered all available information to confirm that new employees were of good character and suitable to work with people.

At our last inspection we saw that risk was not always managed consistently because they were not regularly reviewed. At this inspection we saw that risks were assessed, managed and reviewed to assist people to maintain their independence in their own homes.

At our last inspection we saw that staff training was not consistently effective. At this inspection people and their relatives told us that they received support from knowledgeable, skilled staff. Staff felt equipped to provide a good service through regular supervision and training opportunities. They told us there was an open inclusive culture and they could ask the manager for support at any time.

At our last inspection we saw that the provider did not provide a consistently effective service because they did not review the care that was planned with people. At this inspection people told us that they had their care reviewed regularly and that they received care that was centred on their needs.

At our last inspection we saw that quality audits were not consistently effective. At this inspection we saw that quality checks were in place which audited the effectiveness of the service and drove continuous improvement.

We looked at the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and found when people were unable to consent to their care, mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were not completed.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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 told us that they were supported to keep safe. Staff were knowledgeable about protecting people from abuse and knew how to report any concerns. There were sufficient staff employed to meet peoples’ needs. People told us that the care they received was good and that the staff were caring. People received continuity of care from staff who knew them well and were able to build relationships and trust. Their privacy and dignity was respected.

People were supported to manage their medicines by trained, competent staff. There were systems in place to monitor their intake of food and drink and staff knew how to refer people to healthcare professionals for further support. .

Peoples’ views and feedback were welcomed and used to improve the service. People told us that they knew the manager and felt confident that any concerns they raised would be resolved promptly.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection was announced 48 hours prior to it taking place, this was to ensure someone was available. At our last inspection 14 October 2013 we found the service was not compliant with Regulation 10. The provider had not regularly assessed the quality of the service provided and had not sought the views of people who used the service to help to improve the quality of care. Following the last inspection we were provided with an action plan outlining the action the provider had taken to make the improvements required. We checked to see if these improvements had been made.

Golden Years Limited is a small domiciliary care service providing both personal and domestic support to people who live in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were 38 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager in post who was responsible for management of the agency. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

People told us they were happy with the care they received from Golden Years Care, they liked the staff who provided support and were happy that they were treated with dignity and respect.

People received individualised care that took account of their needs and wishes. We found that people’s support needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered as agreed with each individual. There were examples where care plans had not been reviewed this meant they may not be up to date and people were at risk of receiving inappropriate care.

Recruitment procedures were in place meaning checks were carried out to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. There were examples where the procedures had not been robust, which meant people may have been placed at risk.

Staff and the registered manager told us that their care practice was monitored to ensure they delivered people’s personal care to the standards expected and in accordance with their plan of care.

People’s views of the quality of the service they received had been sought to enable the provider to make any improvements necessary. We found management arrangements were satisfactory but further improvements were needed to ensure that the service was monitored effectively and improvements initiated.

Staff told us they had received essential training to meet people’s needs, but there were examples where staff felt their training could be improved.

People using the service told us they were provided with useful information about the service. People were involved in the discussions and decisions made about their care and support.

The support was provided by skilled staff who knew the needs of people well and what to do to assist them. People said they had no concerns about the service and knew how to raise concerns should they need to.

The staff received training that was appropriate for their individual needs and provided them with the information they needed to care for the people living in their own home.

Quality monitoring systems were in place whereby the quality of the care was reviewed and monitored. Formal systems to review the service were not completed and people’s views were not formally gained to influence the development of the service.

People we spoke with said that the agency had visited them before providing a service and had discussed with them the care they needed. People also told us that care workers treated them with respect and promoted their right to privacy.

People were happy with the service they received. They said that they had regular care workers that knew their needs and provided their care in the way they wanted. People had an individual plan of care although this was not always kept up to date.

People told us that they trusted their care workers and felt safe. They were confident that the agency would act on any concerns that were raised.

People were complimentary about their care workers and felt they had the skills to provide their care. Staff received training to make sure that they had the knowledge and skills to provide people with the care they needed.

The agency was undertaking a number of checks to make sure that people were receiving appropriate care although there was no formal system in place and not all checks were fully recorded.