We sent out questionnaires to 60 people who used the service and also enclosed a separate questionnaire for their relatives or advocates. We received 10 completed replies from people who used the service and six from their relatives or advocates. During our inspection we spoke with 12 people who received care from this agency and with the relatives of two people. We also spoke with four staff members.

People experienced care and treatment that met their needs and protected their rights. The majority of the people who responded to our survey told us the service they received was ‘excellent’ with the remainder of people rating it as ‘good’. This view was reflected by most of the people we spoke with. One person told us, “I am 100% happy with the service I get.” Another person said, “Oh yes, they’re very good, I get lots of different people but they are all excellent.” One person’s relative said, “They’re brilliant with my [relative], they come every day and they only ever let us down once, but they sorted that.” However, three people expressed concern that they had seen a very recent increase in the number of staff who provided their care and treatment. These people also said the staff timekeeping had deteriorated.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

We found people receiving a service were protected by the recruitment checks that the provider carried out. This ensured only suitable staff were appointed to provide care and treatment.

There were effective systems in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service and to assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

There was an effective complaints system available and we found complaints were appropriately investigated.

We spoke with the relatives of six people who used the service. They told us that they and their relative had been fully involved in the discussions to develop the care plan prior to the service being started. One of the relatives we spoke with told us that they were always involved when there were discussions to review the care provided. One told us, "They are fantastic. They are always on time and just get on with it."

We looked at the electronic copies of the care plans for five people. These were very detailed and included needs and risk assessments for every area affecting the care of the person. We spoke with six relatives of people who used the service. All told us that they felt that their relative was safe and protected by the care workers.

We looked at the training records for each of the regions and specialist areas of the organisation. These showed that the majority of staff had received updated training in safeguarding procedures within the last twelve months.

We looked at the records of four new staff members. Two had started work only after a full and satisfactory Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check had been received. However the other two checks were still outstanding at the time of the inspection.

Documents that we saw showed the provider had regard to the comments and complaints made by people.