The inspection took place on 4 January 2017 and was announced.

Home Instead Senior Care Bagshot provides care and support to people in their own homes. The service supported 92 people at the time of our inspection, 47 of whom were receiving personal care. The registered provider of the service is Martin Care Services Ltd.

There was a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. Like registered providers, registered managers 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.

People felt safe when staff provided their care because their care workers understood their needs and any risks involved in their care. Relatives were confident their family members were safe when receiving their care. People told us that they could rely on their care workers. They said their care workers had never missed a visit and the agency contacted them to let them know if a care worker was running late. The provider had identified those people most at risk if their care was interrupted and had developed plans to prioritise the delivery of their care in the event of an emergency.

Staff received training in safeguarding and recognising the signs of abuse. The provider described situations in which staff had taken action to protect people and keep them safe. The agency carried out risk assessments to ensure that people receiving care and the staff supporting them were kept safe. Where an incident or accident had occurred, there was a record of how the event had occurred and what action could be taken to be taken to prevent a recurrence. People were protected by the provider’s recruitment procedures. The provider carried out pre-employment checks to ensure they employed suitable people to work at the agency.

People received their care from regular care workers who knew their needs well. New care workers were always introduced to people by the provider before they began to provide their care. The provider understood the importance people placed on having regular care workers and ensured people received a consistent service from familiar staff. Staff had access to the training and support they needed to fulfil their roles. All staff attended an induction when they joined the agency and shadowed experienced colleagues until the provider was confident in their ability to provide people’s care safely and effectively.

The agency worked co-operatively with people’s families to ensure they received the treatment they needed. Relatives told us staff were observant of any changes in their family member’s needs and said the provider contacted them if they had any concerns about people’s health or welfare. People’s nutritional needs were assessed during their initial assessment and any dietary needs recorded in their care plans. Where people needed assistance with eating and drinking there was a care plan in place to outline the support they required.

People were supported by kind and caring staff. People told us their care workers were polite and treated them and their property with respect. They said they had developed good relationships with their care workers. Relatives told us staff knew how their family members preferred their care to be provided and cared about their welfare. The provider was actively involved in a range of initiatives designed to improve local services and support for people living with dementia and their family carers.

People’s needs were assessed before they began to use the service to ensure the agency could provide the care they needed. An individual care plan was drawn up from the assessment. People were encouraged to be involved in the development of their care plans to ensure they reflected their needs and preferences.

People received a service that was highly responsive to their individual needs. People and their relatives told us the provider always tried to accommo

We found that people’s needs had been thoroughly assessed and that individualised care was being provided by the service. Where appropriate, relatives had been involved in planning and reviewing care. One relative told us, “I was there for the assessment and the manager always involves me if there are any difficulties or changes. The communication has been excellent”.

Relatives told us that they and people who used the service had confidence in their security while being cared for and supported by care givers. One relative said, “I know my relative looks forward to their visits and I have complete trust in the managers and care givers to keep them safe”.

We found that there were sufficient numbers of care staff to meet the needs of people who used the service. On care giver said, “I would say there are enough of us. I have never known a call to be missed and most of us are available to do additional calls if required”.

We found evidence of good systems to monitor care standards and performance including an effective complaints and comments process. This meant that people, their relatives and staff were confident that feedback about the care provided was responded to promptly and appropriately.

We found that the provider knew the requirement to notify other incidents to the CQC and the evidence confirmed that they had done so as required.