The inspection took place on 25 and 30 May 2017 with the provider being given short notice of the visit to the office in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies. The service was previously inspected in May 2015 when no breaches of legal requirements were identified and the service was given a rating of Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for “Home Instead Senior Care (Rotherham)” on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’

Home Instead Senior Care (Rotherham) provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the Rotherham area. Its office is based on the outskirts of Rotherham. The agency currently caters for people whose main needs are those associated with older people, but also supports people with other needs, such as a learning or physical disability. In addition to carrying out the regulated activity of personal care, the service provides companionship and home help services. At the time of the inspection, 26 people were receiving personal care from the provider.

The service had a registered manager in post 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.

People praised the quality of care they received, and told us that staff treated them with respect and cared for them in a way which met their needs.

There were systems in place to reduce the risk of abuse and to assess and monitor potential risks to individual people. Staff had received appropriate training in relation to protecting people from the risk of abuse.

Recruitment processes were robust, which helped the employer make safer recruitment decisions when employing new staff.

The provider acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act, and assessments of people’s capacity were undertaken when their care was planned. Staff had received appropriate training in relation to this.

Staff praised the training that they received and told us it equipped them to undertake their role. Training records showed that staff received a range of training and many held nationally recognised qualifications in care.

People were involved in planning their care. Care plans were personalised so that they met each person’s needs and preferences. Care plans were regularly reviewed to ensure that they were suitable to people’s needs. Records showed that people’s dignity and privacy was upheld when receiving care, and staff told us that this was the most important part of their work.

There was a comprehensive complaints system which was available to people using the service, and we saw that where complaints had been received they were responded to in a prompt and thorough manner.

Staff told us they felt well supported by the provider, and told us that managers were approachable.

The provider undertook regular audits and assessments to ensure the service provided was of a high quality, and there were systems in place for addressing any shortfalls and implementing improvements.

The inspection took place on 12 May 2015 with the provider being given short notice of the visit to the office in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies. The service was previously inspected on 13 January 2014, when no breaches of legal requirements were identified.

Home Instead Senior Care’s office is based on the outskirts of Rotherham. The company provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. It supports people whose main needs are those associated with older people, including dementia. The company also provides companionship and home help services.

The service had a registered manager in post 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.

At the time of our inspection there were 17 people receiving support with their personal care. We spoke with four people who used the service and six relatives about their experiences of using the agency. All the people we spoke with told us they were very happy with the service provided.

People’s needs had been assessed before their care package commenced and they told us they had been fully involved in formulating and updating their care plans. The information contained in the care records we sampled was individualised and clearly identified people’s needs and preferences, as well as any risks associated with their care and the environment they lived in.

People received a service that was based on their personal needs and wishes. We saw changes in their needs were quickly identified and their care package amended to meet the changes. One care plan we checked had not been updated in a timely manner, but the registered manager was in the process of addressing this.

Where people needed assistance taking their medication this was administered in a timely way by staff who had been trained to carry out this role. However, one handwritten medication record we saw had not been completed consistently. The registered manager took action to address this.

Policies and procedures were in place covering the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), which aims to protect people who may not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 sets out what must be done to make sure that the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected, including balancing autonomy and protection in relation to consent or refusal of care or treatment. We saw staff had received training in this subject.

We found the service employed enough staff to meet the needs of the people being supported. People told us they were always introduced to their care workers before they provided any care or support and the company tried to match people with care workers they felt would suit them. People we spoke with praised the staff who supported them and raised no concerns about how their care was delivered.

There was a robust recruitment system in place that helped the employer make safer recruitment decisions when employing new staff. We saw new staff had received a structured induction and essential training at the beginning of their employment. This had been followed by refresher training to update their knowledge and skills. Staff told us they felt very well supported by the management team.

The company had a complaints policy, which was provided to each person in the information given to them at the start of their care package. We saw no concerns had been recorded in the complaint file, but numerous compliment cards and letters had been received.

The provider had systems in place to enable people to share their opinion of the service provided and check staff were following company polices.

As part of our inspection we visited two of the thirteen people who were receiving personal care to discuss the service the company had provided. We also spoke with four relatives and five members of staff.

Each person had a care file which provided comprehensive information about their assessed needs as well as their preferences, interests, and any risks associated with their care. The people we spoke with said they were very happy with the care and support provided. A relative commented, “Things are going so well. I can’t think of anything that would make it better.”

Before people received care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

People were provided with a choice of suitable and nutritious food and drink. The care plans we looked at recorded people’s nutritional needs in good detail so staff had all the information they needed to support the person appropriately and monitor their wellbeing.

There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. This included staff receiving training in this subject and the provision of protective clothing.

Robust background checks had been carried out on staff before they started to work for the company to make sure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

The service had a satisfactory complaints procedure in place and people were made aware of how to raise concerns.

The company had assessed people’s needs before care was provided. Each person had a comprehensive care plan which identified the person’s needs as well as their preferences and any risks associated with their care. The people we spoke with said they were very happy with the care and support they received and felt it was delivered in a safe way. They told us staff offered them choice and respected their opinions while helping them to be as independent as possible.

Staff had received the training and support they needed to meet people’s needs and plans were in place for further training in more specialist subjects. Staff told us they were well supported by the management team and said they enjoyed working for the company.

There were systems in place to gain peoples views and check if staff were following company policies. When we asked people if there was anything they would like to improve they all said they were very happy with the care they received and could think of nothing they would change. One person told us, “They treat you like a person. They are fantastic.” A relative said, “We are very pleased with the service we have had.”