Homecare Domiciliary and Domestic Limited provides personal care for people in their home, throughout Chesterfield and the surrounding area.

We carried out this inspection on 17 October 2016. It was an announced inspection, which meant the provider knew we would be visiting. This was because we wanted to make sure that the registered manager, or someone who could act on their behalf, would be available to talk with us.

At our last inspection on 20 January 2014, we found that the service was meeting all standards assessed. It was compliant with the regulations and no concerns were identified.

A registered manager was in post. 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.

Staff were appropriately recruited, trained and supported. They had undergone a comprehensive induction programme and, where necessary, had received additional training specific to the needs of the people they were supporting. Communication was effective and regular meetings were held to discuss issues and share best practice. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and spoke enthusiastically about the work they did and the people they cared for.

The provider had detailed policies and procedures relating to medicines management. Staff understanding and competency regarding the management of medicines was subject to regular monitoring checks and medicines training was updated appropriately.

Staff knew the people they were supporting and provided a personalised service and used effective systems for gaining consent. Individual care plans, based on a full assessment of need, were in place detailing how people wished to be supported. This helped ensure that personal care was provided in a structured and consistent manner. Risk assessments were also in place to effectively identify and manage potential risks.

Where people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions the home was guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to ensure any decisions were made in the person’s best interests.

Systems were in place to effectively monitor the safety and quality of the service and to gather the views and experiences of people and their relatives. The service was flexible and responded positively to people’s changing needs and any issues or concerns raised. People and their relatives told us they were confident that any concerns they might have would be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon.

We saw that people’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plans.

Each person received an assessment of their care needs, including any risks associated with their care provision. People consented to the care that was provided, in accordance with their wishes.

People using the service told us they felt well cared for by a reliable staff team. They said staff attended all of their scheduled visits and delivered the care and support they were supposed to.

We saw that care was provided by trained staff who knew the needs of people well. One person using the service told us, “The staff know what they are doing. I never have any worries about how they look after me.”

The service had a system in place to obtain people's feedback about their care and experiences. People told us they had the opportunity to feedback to the provider about their care and experiences, and had no complaints to raise. One person said, “They came and asked me about how happy I was. It’s nice that they are interested and listen to you.”

We spoke to three people who used the service and one relative. One person told us that the service was well organised and efficient. Another person told us that that in the beginning it was not always the same carers who came. They had contacted the office and now had the same main carer and the same person on days off or during the holidays. They were much happier and said it was important to know who you were going to be dressed and undressed by. They told us the service was responsive an example of this being that the carers had agreed to come at an earlier time so that one person could attend an important hospital appointment.

Another person told us that their relative had been interviewed by someone from the company about dignity and their care. The same person said that they liked to know if the carer was going to be late and had asked that they could always be informed. They told us that the carers were usually on time and that the office now called to inform them if they were going to be late.

Everyone we spoke to said they were treated with dignity and respect and that they found the service very good.

People we spoke with told us” they were well looked after and had no complaints about the agency or carers they are marvellous.” They said they had not had a carer they did not like.”

The majority of the people we spoke with had been with the agency for a while, and were very happy with the care they received.” We were told “the office keeps in good contact with them and they would contact them if they had any complaints.” We were told they had a care plan and someone from the agency had been to see them before the carer came to look after them.