This inspection took place on 22 and 23 November and 13 December 2016 and was announced. Royal Mencap – Norwich Domiciliary Care Agency is registered to provide personal care to younger adults and people who have learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder who live in supported living schemes in the Norwich area. At the time of our inspection 18 people were receiving personal care from the service. The amount of support provided to people was based on their assessed needs and varied from 24 hours a day support for people with very complex support and care needs to a few hours each week for people who were relatively independent.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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 scheme is run.

There were systems in place to help keep people safe from harm. Staff knew what abuse was and they were also aware of how to report any concerns about peoples’ safety if they had them. There were enough staff to meet people's needs with a regular, consistent staff team. There were robust recruitment practices in place, which meant staff had been recruited safely.

Medicines were managed in a safe way and support was offered by staff when needed. Risks to people and staff had been assessed. People felt safe and where risks to people were identified, action was taken to reduce them.

People were supported by well trained and skilled staff. Staff supervision, meetings and appraisals were taking place on a regular basis, which meant staff had the opportunity to reflect on and develop their practice.

People's rights to make their own decisions were promoted and respected. People confirmed they were involved in decision-making about their care and support needs where possible.

When needed, people were offered support to eat and drink and to participate in hobbies and pastimes they chose. Staff supported people to make and attend health appointments if requested.

People's care plans were comprehensive and provided guidance to staff on how to meet people's needs. People received support that was individualised to their specific needs.

Staff felt they were listened to and were given the opportunity to raise any concerns. Staff were knowledgeable about people's background histories, preferences and routines.

The management team assessed and monitored the quality of the service through audits that were undertaken.

We spoke with 10 people in their homes, either privately or, at their request, in the presence of a staff member. We also spoke with relatives of two other people who used the service.

We saw evidence that people were respected and involved in decisions about their support and personal care. A family member told us that their relative had become “…more independent…” since the provider had taken over responsibility for their support. One person told us that they were a member of the 'events committee.' Another person told us “…the staff look after me very well.”

The provider’s safeguarding policy detailed the procedures to be followed by staff if they suspected abuse had occurred. It was available in an 'easy to read' format. The provider also operated the ‘Speak Out Safely’ whistleblowing process. Staffing levels were sufficient to enable effective support and care to be given.

The provider obtained feedback from people who used the service in a number of ways, including surveys and meetings. The provider also carried out regular checks and audits. Complaints were investigated and actions taken in response. This showed us that the service was well-managed and responsive.