The Human Support Group Limited is a domiciliary care service providing personal care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection care was being provided to 87 people.

On our last inspection on 26 January 2015 the service was rated as Good; on this inspection we found the service remained Good. The registered manager and staff understood their role and responsibilities to keep people safe from harm. Risks were assessed and plans put in place to keep people safe. Checks were carried out on staff to assess their suitability to support vulnerable people.

Staff received regular supervision and the training needed to meet people's needs. The registered manager and staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and, worked to ensure people's rights were respected.

The service was responsive and people received individualised care and support. People were encouraged to make their views known and the service responded by making changes. The registered manager said they welcomed comments and complaints and saw them as an opportunity to improve the care provided.

The vision, values and culture of the service were clearly communicated to and understood by staff. A quality assurance system was in place. This meant the quality of service people received was monitored on a regular basis and where shortfalls were identified they were acted upon.

People were cared for by staff who knew them well. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. Care was taken to ensure care staff were able to communicate with people using their preferred language. The manager and staff had a good understanding of equality, diversity and human rights.

The Human Support Group Limited – Heywood is also known as The Homecare Support Agency and is registered to provide care and support to adults living in their own homes. The service provides personal care mainly to elderly people living in Oldham and Rochdale.

We last inspected this service on 7 January 2014 and found the regulations we assessed were being met.

The provider was given 48 hours’ notice of this inspection which took place on 26 January 2015.

The agency had a registered manager 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. However, the registered manager had been seconded to another part of the company and a manager had been appointed to ensure the agency continued to operate according to current legislation.

Safeguarding procedures were robust and members of staff understood their role in safeguarding vulnerable people from harm.

We found that recruitment procedures were thorough so that people were protected from the employment of unsuitable staff.

Risks to people who used the service and members of staff were identified and managed safely.

Members of staff responsible for assisting people with their medicines had received training to ensure that medicines were handled safely.

People who used the service told us that they usually received their care from a team of care workers whom they knew. People said the care workers were reliable and mostly arrived on time.

Members of staff told us they were supported by management and received regular training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to provide effective care for people who used the service.

Discussion with care workers confirmed that they understood the importance of promoting people’s privacy and dignity. People who used the service told us they were treated with respect and the care workers were friendly.

We found that people who used the service usually received their care from a regular team of care workers. People’s care records were kept up to date so that staff had up to date information about the help and support people required.

Although the people who used the service told us they were satisfied with the care provided they felt confident to make a complaint if necessary.

People who used the service told us that the office staff were polite and helpful. They also said that they would recommend the agency to other people.

Arrangements were in place for the manager and senior managers within the company to monitor all aspects of the service provided.

In this report the name of a registered manager, Mrs. Joanne Goodier, appears who was not present and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time.

We carried out an inspection on 7 January 2014 and spoke on the telephone with a further 34 people who use the services and two relatives to gather their views.

All the people we spoke with told us the staff treated people with respect and made sure their dignity was maintained. Everyone we spoke with told us the staff helped to maintain people’s independence where possible. Comments included “The staff help me shower and always treat me with care” and “The staff do all I ask, even post letters for me at times”.

All the people we spoke with confirmed they were involved in their care options and were able to contribute to discussion about the way in which the service was provided to them.

There were positive comments about the staff. The people we spoke with told us “I am happy with the care, the staff support and care is excellent”, “Can’t fault any of the staff, I have a laugh with them” and “The staff understand what my needs are”.

Appropriate quality monitoring and auditing processes were in place to provide consistent care. The people we spoke with told us the staff generally arrived on time and there were very few missed calls.

The service provides support to people in their own homes in areas such as personal care, shopping, administering medication and domestic tasks. People had consented to the care and support provided and this was documented in their care records.

Staff had not received training on application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This would help them determine if people had the capacity to make informed decisions about their care, treatment and support.

We saw that care plans and risk assessments were in place. Care and support needs were identified but there was little person centred information recorded, for example, about their preferences. We were told that care plans were regularly reviewed. One person using the service told us they were “happy” with their care plan and said “it covers what is required”.

We saw that recent complaints had involved concerns about medication. We found documents relating to people taking their medication that were unclear or incomplete. A number of staff had not received any refresher training on medication since their induction which was over two years ago.

People told us that they were “very happy with the service” and the care workers were a “great group of people”. There was a clear recruitment process in place. Staff and people using the service confirmed that, where possible, their care needs were met by the same core group of staff for continuity.

We saw evidence that an effective complaints system was in place.

The people who we spoke with who received care from this agency told us that they were happy the service. One person told us “I am very happy with the service. There are no problems and I would not change anything about the service. I like the staff who visit me.” We also heard “Staff are very good”, “The majority of the staff are fine” and “Staff are nice.” One person said “I like the staff and they always close the gate on the way out.”

Another person told us “Staff are friendly and polite. You can have a laugh with them.”

People told us that they knew how to complain if they were not happy with the care that they received. One person said “I would ring and tell the office staff if I was not happy.”