This inspection took place on 14 September 2016 and on 21 September 2016 we spoke with people who use the service and their relatives by telephone. This inspection was announced. 48 hours’ notice of the inspection was given because we needed to be sure the manager was present and that all the required documentation was available for us to review. When we last inspected the service in May 2014 we found that the provider was meeting the legal requirements in the areas that we looked at. At this inspection we found the provider was continuing to meet all the expected standards.

The service provides care to people in their own homes. At the time of the inspection they were providing care for 45 people of which 17 people received personal care. The People using the service had a range of needs, including physical or learning disabilities and older People, some of whom may be living with dementia.

The service had 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 & Social Care Act and associated regulations about how the service is run.

Without exception, the feedback we received from people who used the service and their relatives was good. They expressed a high level of confidence in the management and individual staff to provide safe, compassionate care that met their needs in the way they liked to be supported.

Staff demonstrated a clear commitment to protecting people from possible harm, and were knowledgeable about how they should do this. Systems were in place to identify and minimise any risks to people.

Staff were well trained and had a very good understanding of people’s care needs. The manager offered high level support to staff, ensuring that they were familiar with people’s needs, and had the skills and knowledge to meet them before they started to provide support. Each person was supported by a consistent team of staff to ensure that they received care from staff who knew them and that they felt safe with.

The provider demonstrated a compassionate and person centred approach to care and people told us they enjoyed positive relationships with staff that were friendly and respectful. They confirmed staff took care to protect their dignity and privacy.

The service provided to people was based on their individual needs and was flexible to accommodate any changes that were required. People felt able to express their views and the provider sought feedback from people to support continuous improvements to the service.

There were effective processes in place to monitor the quality of the care provided to people

who used the service. The provider demonstrated strong values based on high quality person centred care, and this was reflected by the staff, who were proud to work for the service and were clearly motivated to do their jobs well.

Home Instead Senior Care is a small domiciliary agency based in Chelmsford that has been operating for the past twelve months. The service provides personal care and companionship to people requiring support. We spoke with two of the 16 people who used the service and two relatives. We spoke with two staff members and the manager. We reviewed three people's care records. Other records viewed included staff training records, personnel records, policies and quality assurance questionnaires. We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask: Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well-led? This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

We saw the service had systems in place to ensure people received visits to their homes on time to provide care and support. The service carried out spot checks on staff who delivered support. The service also recorded times and lengths of each visit. Before people received care they were personally introduced to the person who would be visiting them to give support. All staff carried photographic identification.

We saw that the staff were provided with training in safeguarding of vulnerable adults from abuse, and the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. This meant that staff were provided with the information that they needed to recognise signs of abuse and respond to any concerns identified.

We saw that the service had a robust recruitment process and employed staff after appropriate checks were completed. Staff completed mandatory training and had an induction before working with people. This meant that people were protected from potential harm because the provider took care to only employ staff who had been vetted as safe to work with vulnerable people.

Is the service effective?

People's care records showed that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. The records were regularly reviewed and updated which meant that staff were provided with up to date information about how people's needs were met.

Is the service caring?

Staff we spoke with were able to demonstrate they knew people well as individuals. A relative we spoke with said the service goes: "Above and beyond." A person who used the service said: "I look forward to them [staff] coming."

Is the service responsive?

We saw from records that the service responded to people's changing needs. We saw examples where time spent with people was increased and where additional staff was needed this was provided. Relatives told us that the service was able to respond to their requests when the needs of their relative changed. We saw evidence of the service putting together a support package for one person being discharged from hospital on the day of our inspection. This told us the service could respond quickly to people's changing support requirements.

Is the service well led?

The service had a quality monitoring system in place. Records seen by us showed that people were regularly asked for their feedback of the service. As a result the quality of the service had been maintained. We saw from records that staff had regular meetings, supervision and appraisals from the manager, to ensure staff performance was monitored.