The inspection took place on 21 November 2016. The inspection was announced.

Homelife Care Limited Crowborough is registered as a domiciliary care agency, providing personal care to people in their own homes in the community. They provide services to any people who need care and support. The agency provides care services mainly to people living within a ten mile radius of their office in Crowborough. There were approximately 114 people receiving support to meet their personal care needs on the day we inspected.

There was a registered manager based at the service. 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.

The service was run by two providers who were fully involved in the day to day running of the service. The registered manager was also one of the providers.

People felt safe when receiving their support from Homelife Care Limited and knew who to contact if they had any worries about their safety. Staff had a good knowledge of how to safeguard vulnerable adults from abuse and knew what their responsibilities were within their role. They knew who to report their concerns to both inside and outside of the organisation.

Risks to individual people and their circumstances had been identified, with actions put in place to reduce the risk and maintain people’s safety. People’s home environment, inside and outside, had been checked for hazards before their support commenced, helping to keep people and staff safe. Most people did not need help from staff to take their medicines, as they managed this themselves or family and friends helped, however some people did. Staff had the training necessary to equip them with the skills to safely administer medicines to people.

The providers had robust recruitment processes in place to make sure new staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people in their own homes. Enough staff were available to be able to run an effective service, responsive to people’s needs. People told us that staff were always on time when visiting and always stayed to support them for the whole time they were allocated. Staff had suitable training at induction when they were new as well as regular updates. Most of the training was by DVD's although the registered manager allocated time on the rota for groups of staff to go into the office to undertake their training. Additional training was available to make sure staff were skilled and confident to cater for specialist needs, such as to support people living with dementia. Staff had ‘spot checks’ to make sure their practice continued to be safe and of good quality as well as one to one supervision.

Although most people looked after their own health care needs or had a family member who helped with this, staff supported people who needed assistance when requiring health care appointments or advice.

People told us they made their own decisions and choices and staff were clear that people were in control of their care and support. Mental capacity assessments had been undertaken where appropriate following the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People’s families were often involved if their loved ones needed support to make decisions and family members told us this.

The caring approach of staff was evidenced, people were very positive about the staff who supported them, some describing them as friends they looked forward to seeing. Most people had regular staff providing their care and support who had got to know them well, creating confidence and trust. People were given a service user guide at the commencement of their care and support with the information they would need about the service they should expect.

A member of the management team undertook an initial

We phoned the agency 48 hours before visiting to tell them of the inspection and ask them to arrange for us to see two people using the service in their own homes. We spoke with five people using the service, six relatives, staff and managers.

People told us they had been involved in the assessment and planning of their care and its regular review. They said they were listened to, their preferences taken into account and any changes in their needs were addressed quickly. One person told us “They are professional, obliging and flexible”. A relative said “We are happy with the care. They do things the way our relative likes and always keep us well informed”.

They told us they were treated with respect and were satisfied with their care and support which was as described in their care plans. One person said “They start my day so well. I couldn’t be happier” and a relative said “The care is wonderful. Our relative is not a service user to the staff but a real person and they understand their needs very well”.

Most people’s medicines were supplied through the monitored dosage system and they were supported to receive them safely by appropriately trained staff.

The recruitment process in place ensured that all staff had appropriate checks before starting work and had undertaken the relevant training.

The provider had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of care and support people received. Feedback from people using the service was sought and they were responsive when issues or concerns were raised.

People received a good quality of care and support. Care plans reflected each person’s needs and preferences. Families were encouraged to be involved where the person wished it.

We spoke with nine people who used the service, all of whom were complimentary. One person told us they “had the highest regard for the workers”. Another person said the staff were “wonderful, efficient and amusing”. One person told us the staff were “a nice bunch of calm people”.

People told us they were included in the planning of their care. One person told us they were “always happy to answer questions when things arose”. Another person told us “they are much better then the other company we were with”.

Staff we spoke with were caring and responded to people’s needs. Staff told us they felt supported by the agency and received regular, quality training.

Staff were knowledegable about keeping people safe. People told us they felt safe and confident to talk to staff if they had any concerns.