Kinetic Domicilary Care Services are a community service that provides care and support to adults of all ages, in their own homes. The service provides help with people's personal care needs in Rotherham and surrounding areas. This includes people with physical disabilities and dementia care needs. At the time of the inspection they were providing personal care for 150 people.

The inspection was announced. The provider was given 48 hours' notice because we wanted to make sure the registered manager and staff would be available to speak with us. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

At the last inspection on 13 January 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

There was a registered manager at the service who was also the provider. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service was safe. Risk assessments were completed to enable people to receive care with a minimum of risk to themselves or the care staff. Robust recruitment procedures were followed to ensure as far as possible only suitable staff were employed. Staff were trained to safeguard and protect people. They were aware of their responsibility to report concerns.

The service was effective. People were cared for and supported by staff who had received training to support people to meet their needs. The registered manager had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to eat and drink enough to ensure they maintained a balanced diet and referrals to other health professionals were made when required.

The service was caring. People were cared for and supported by staff who knew them well. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People's views were actively sought and they were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

The service was responsive. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis and also when there was a change in care needs. The registered manager responded to complaints received in a timely manner.

The service was well led. There was a positive culture within the staff team and staff spoke positively about their work. Staff were complimentary about the management team and how they were supported to carry out their work. The registered manager and senior staff were committed to providing a good service for people. There were quality assurance systems in place to help ensure any areas for improvement were identified and action taken to continuously improve the quality of the service provided. People told us they were regularly asked for their views about the quality of the service they received.

The inspection took place on 13 January 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 3 October 2013, when no breaches of legal requirements were identified.

Kinetic Nursing Services agency is registered to provide personal care and nursing care to people living in their own homes. However at the time of our inspection it was not providing nurses to anyone in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting people with a variety of care needs including older people, people living with dementia, end of life care and younger people with physical disabilities. Care and support were co-ordinated from the services office which is based on the outskirts of Rotherham.

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 181 people using the service. We spoke with 18 people who used the service and their relatives, where appropriate, about their experiences using the agency. The majority of people we spoke with told us they were entirely happy with the service provided while a minority of people highlighted areas they felt could be improved.

People’s needs had been assessed before their care package commenced and they told us they had been involved in formulating and updating their care plans. We found 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

We found people received a service that was based on their personal needs and wishes. Changes in people’s needs were quickly identified and their care package amended to meet their changing needs. 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.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were in place 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.

Overall we found the service employed enough staff to meet the needs of the people being supported. This included care workers who visited people on a regular basis and ‘spot workers’ who were used to fill in gaps where and when needed. People who used the service raised no concerns about how the service was staffed. The majority of the people we spoke with confirmed they had the same group of care staff most of the time. However, four people commented about having lots of different staff visit them, which they did not like.

There was a 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 regular refresher training to update their knowledge and skills. Where staff were supporting people with complex needs additional training had been arranged to meet their needs, such as care of someone with a tracheostomy. Staff told us they felt well supported and received an annual appraisal of their work performance. However, there were no records maintained to evidence that formal supervision had taken place.

The company had a complaints policy which was provided to each person in the information pack provided at the start of their care package. When concerns had been raised we saw the correct procedure had been used to investigate and resolve issues.

The provider had a system in place to enable people to share their opinion of the service provided. We also saw an audit system had been used to check if company policies had been followed. Where improvements were needed the provider had put action plans in place to address these.

As part of our inspection we attempted to contact 22 people using the service. We spoke with eight people by telephone and visited four people in their home’s to discuss the service the agency had provided. Where people were unable to speak to us we spoke with their representatives. We also spoke with twelve members of staff.

Each person had a care file which identified their assessed needs as well as their preferences and any risks associated with their care. The people we spoke with said they were happy with the care and support provided. One person told us, “They (care workers) are marvellous, nothing is too much trouble.”

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.

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.

Background checks had been carried out on staff before they started to work at the agency to make sure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

The provider had an effective system in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service people received.

We saw complaints were dealt with appropriately.