This was our first inspection of Home Instead Senior Care. The visit was announced and was carried out on 15 and 16 May 2018. The provider was given notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service. We needed to be sure that someone would be in the office. The service provided domiciliary care and support to people living in and around the borough of Charnwood, Leicestershire. At the time of our inspection there were 21 people using the service.

Not everyone using Home Instead Senior Care received the regulated activity; personal care. CQC only inspects the service received by people provided with personal care, help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they did we also took into account any wider social care provided. Of the 21 people using the service, nine were receiving personal care.

The evidence seen supported the rating of Outstanding.

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 and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People using the service and their relatives were extremely positive and complimentary about the service they received and of the support workers, known as care givers and management team who supported them on a daily basis.

People told us they felt extremely safe using Home Instead Senior Care and felt really safe with the care givers who provided their care and support. Relatives we spoke with agreed that their relatives were safe with the care givers who supported them.

Care givers were aware of their responsibilities for keeping people safe from avoidable harm or abuse. They had received training on the safeguarding of adults and knew the process to follow should they be concerned for anyone. The management team were aware of their responsibilities for keeping people safe and knew to refer any concerns on to the local authority and Care Quality Commission (CQC).

People's needs had been comprehensively assessed and the risks associated with their care and support had been assessed, reviewed and managed. The care givers had received training in the prevention and control of infection and the necessary protective personal equipment was available.

People were supported to stay safe at all times and their freedom was respected. They were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care givers supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

A robust recruitment process was followed to make sure only suitable people worked at the service. A comprehensive induction and training programme ensured the care givers were well trained to meet people’s individual and diverse needs and work in line with the provider’s values and beliefs. People told us there were enough care givers to meet their needs. They explained they were extremely punctual, always turned up and never missed a visit. Care givers were matched to the people using the service and meaningful relationships had been built between the care giver and the person using the service and their families.

Care givers had received training in the management of medicines and people were supported with their medicines as prescribed by their doctor and in line with the provider’s medicines policy. The provider’s auditing processes ensured people continued to be supported with their medicines in a safe way.

There were arrangements in place to make sure action was taken and lessons learned when things went wrong to sustain and improve safety across the service.

People told us the care givers were extremely kind and caring and they were treated with the upmost respect. They told us their care and support was provided in a way they preferred and their consent was always obtained. The care givers supported peo