Home Instead Senior Care provides personal care and support to people who live in their own homes. The agency has three offices, based in north Sheffield, south Sheffield and Barnsley. The registered manager is based in the north Sheffield office. Support is provided to younger adults and older people living in their own homes in the Sheffield and Barnsley area. Not everyone using Home Instead Senior Care receives the regulated activity, personal care. Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; which is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection Home Instead Senior Care were supporting 59 people with a personal care service.

There was a manager at the service who was registered with the CQC. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 our last inspection, we rated the service good. At this inspection, we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

There were systems in place to protect people from harm, including how medicines were managed. Staff were trained in how to recognise and respond to abuse and understood their responsibility to report any concerns to the management team.

Safe recruitment processes were followed and appropriate checks had been undertaken, which made sure suitable staff were employed to care for people.

People were supported in a kind caring way that took account of their individual needs and preferences. People and their families were supported to express their views and be involved in decisions about their care.

People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems supported this practice.

Staff were supported to provide appropriate care to people because they were trained, supervised and appraised. There was an induction, training and development programme, which supported staff to gain relevant knowledge and skills.

People received regular and ongoing health checks and support to attend appointments. They were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs and to make informed choices about what they ate.

The service was responsive to people’s needs and staff listened to what staff said. People could be confident that any concerns or complaints would be listened to and dealt with.

Systems were in place that continuously assessed and monitored the quality of the service.

At the time of this inspection 178 people were supported by Home Instead Senior Care.

During our inspection visit we spoke with the owner and the head of care about the management of the agency. In addition, 4 support workers came to the office so that we could talk to them about working for Home Instead Senior Care.

We telephoned 26 people who were supported by Home Instead Senior Care, from all areas covered by the agency. We spoke with 24 people using the service, or their relative about the support provided. They told us that they were happy with the agency. Their comments included, “We are highly satisfied,” “They are very good and have adhered to what we agreed” and “I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend them. They are obliging and always give their best.”

We found that people’s needs and wishes were discussed and agreed with them prior to any commencement of service provision. This ensured that staff acted in accordance with people’s wishes.

We found that people's care and support needs were assessed and each person had a written support plan that set out their identified needs and the actions required of staff to meet these.

We found that suitable arrangements were in place to ensure people were safeguarded against the risk of abuse and their rights were upheld.

The provider had a satisfactory recruitment and selection procedure in place to ensure that staff were appropriately employed.

The provider had an effective complaints system available.

At the time of this inspection 171 people were supported by the agency, approximately 15 percent of this support was personal care. In addition to office based staff, 109 care givers were employed by the agency.

We carried out a routine/scheduled inspection of this service. We visited the office and spoke with the owner, the registered manager and a care coordinator. Seven care givers came to the office to meet with us so that we could talk to them about working for Home Instead domiciliary care agency.

Staff spoken with said that Home Instead was an excellent agency to work for. They told us that they received good support and training so that they could do their jobs well. Staff told us that they were always introduced to people prior to providing support, and felt that the agency excelled in matching care givers to the people they supported. Staff told us that they felt proud to work for Home Instead.

During this inspection we telephoned six people that received support from Home Instead and spoke with them or their relatives about their experiences of the support they received.

All of the people spoken with confirmed that they had been involved in discussing and reviewing their care needs. They told us that a manager had visited them before support commenced to discuss and agree their support package. They told us that they had been introduced to their care giver before support commenced so that they knew who would be visiting them. People told us that the support they received was personalised to their own individual needs, and they had a copy of their care plan (journal) in their home.

Without exception, people spoke very positively about the support they received. They told us that their care givers knew them well and supported them in the way they chose and preferred. They said that care givers were always polite and respectful. Their comments included; “They (the care givers) are truly wonderful. They make a real difference to me. I know my main carer really well. I am always introduced to a new carer if my regular is on holiday. There is never a stranger at my door.” “I cannot fault this service. I have a good relationship with my carer. We can share a laugh and a joke. It really is very good.” “I get all the help I need, and more. They (the agency) are excellent.” People and their relatives felt that staff were well trained and understood their needs.

Home Instead Senior Care is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care. The agency has three offices, based in north Sheffield, south Sheffield and Barnsley. The registered manager is based in the north Sheffield office. Support is provided to younger adults and older people living in their own homes in the Sheffield and Barnsley area. The minimum length of visit provided is one hour. The service is available 365 days each year, 24 hours a day.

At the time of this inspection Home Instead Senior Care was supporting 85 people whose support included the provision of the regulated activity ‘personal care’.

There was a registered manager at the service who was registered with CQC. 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.

Our last inspection at Home Instead Senior Care took place on 17 December 2013. The service was found to be meeting the requirements of the regulations we inspected at that time.

This inspection took place on 30 November and 1 December 2015 and short notice was given. We told the registered manager two working days before our visit that we would be coming. We did this because the registered manager is sometimes out of the office supporting staff or visiting people who use the service. We needed to be sure that the registered manager would be available.

People supported by the service and their relatives or representatives told us they felt (their relative was) safe with their care givers and staff were respectful. People told us the support provided met their needs and the care givers were kind, caring and polite. People spoken with said they had regular care givers that they knew well. They knew which care giver would be visiting to support them and care givers always arrived when they should and stayed the full length of time agreed.

We found systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines safely.

Staff recruitment procedures were thorough and ensured people’s safety was promoted.

Staff were provided with relevant induction and training to make sure they had the right skills and knowledge for their role. Some staff had not been provided with supervision or appraisal at the frequency set out in the provider’s policy. The registered manager organised for these to take place so that staff were up to date. Staff understood their role and what was expected of them. They were happy in their work, motivated and proud to work at the service. Staff were confident in the way the service was managed.

The service followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Code of practice and the principles of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This helped to protect the rights of people who may not be able to make important decisions themselves.

The support provided was person centred and each person had a support plan that accurately reflected their needs and wishes so that these could be respected. Support plans had been reviewed to ensure they remained up to date.

People supported and their relatives or representatives said they could speak with staff if they had any worries or concerns and they would be listened to.

We found the service was very well led with strong user voice and community focus. Outstanding management had a positive outcome for people supported. There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Regular checks and audits were undertaken to make sure full and safe procedures were adhered to. People using the service and their relatives had been asked their opinion via surveys, the results of these had been audited to identify any areas for improvement.