About the service: Mi Life Care Services is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to older adults and adults with learning disabilities living in their own homes.

People’s experience of using this service:

¿ People received outstanding care that was kind and compassionate, person centred care was embedded in planning and practice. People were actively supported and empowered to be fully involved in their care. Where people had communication difficulties the service had used technology to overcome barriers ensuring people were able to express themselves. A diverse range of religions and cultures were supported and respected across the whole service. Staff provided dignified care and promoted and supported independence.

¿ People’s choices, lifestyle, religion and culture as well as their personal and health care needs were all included in the care planning process. People were supported with accessing health care services when they needed, and the service worked in partnership with healthcare professionals. A training program meant people could be assured staff had the knowledge, skills and confidence to do their job. People received care in line with the law and guidance, they were supported in the least restrictive way possible.

¿ People told us they were safe. Risk assessments were in place and reviewed regularly to ensure safe care continued. Staff were trained and could recognise signs of abuse and knew how to report it. Safe recruitment procedures meant that suitable staff were employed. Medicines were managed safely. Staff used Protective personal equipment (PPE) to prevent the spread of infection this included gloves, aprons and hand gels.

¿ People's needs were met by good planning and coordination of care. Pre-admission assessments meant the service was confident it had the right staff available to support people prior to care starting. Regular reviews of care meant the service could respond to changes in people’s needs promptly. A well-managed complaints procedure was in place and people were confident any problems would be responded to appropriately.

¿ The provider, management team and staff had developed an open and honest culture, people and staff found them friendly and supportive. The registered manager had good oversight of the service from the quality monitoring processes. Learning and skill development was actively encouraged, and staff felt confident in their role. The registered manager worked in partnership with other professionals to strive for good outcomes for people who used the service.

Rating at last inspection: Good 13 May 2016.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service is rated good overall.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any information of concern is received, we may inspect sooner.

We inspected the service on 13 May 2016. The inspection was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides domiciliary care; we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

Mi Life Care Services Limited is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care to people in their own homes. On the day of our inspection the service was supporting 82 people.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

People and their relatives told us that they felt safe. Risks were assessed and managed to protect them from harm. Staff understood what to do in emergency situations.

Safe recruitment practices were being followed. Systems were in place to ensure that people received support at the times that they wanted to and this was monitored.

People received their medicines as required. Medicines were administered safely by staff who were competent.

Staff had received training and supervision to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Staff told us that they felt supported. Their competence to do their role was regularly assessed.

People made decisions about their care and the support they received. People were involved and their opinions sought and respected. The registered manager understood their responsibility to ensure people were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were assessed and met. People’s health needs were met and when necessary, outside health professionals were contacted for support.

People’s independence was promoted and people were encouraged to make choices. Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. People’s communication needs were identified and supported.

The care needs of people had been assessed. Staff had a clear understanding of their role and how to support people who used the service. People contributed to the planning and reviewing of their care.

People and staff felt that the registered manager was approachable and action would be taken to address any concerns they may have. People and staff were kept informed of changes to the service and their feedback was sought.

There were systems in place to monitor the provision of service and drive improvement.

During this inspection visit we did not speak with people who used the service. Comments received from people who used the service and the relatives of those people who used the service were included in the inspection report of November 2013.

We found that the service had made improvements to the records relating to the people who used the service, staff and the management of the service. Records were accurate and kept up to date. As part of the overall quality assurance system the provider also monitored and reviewed the accuracy and quality of records to help ensure that people who used the service were protected.

People who used the service told us they felt safe and well cared for. They spoke highly of the care staff and of the prompt response they received from the administration staff if they had any questions or queries.

We saw evidence that the provider regularly reviewed people's care needs and took prompt action to amend records on the advice of external health professionals. The provider also carried regular quality assessments of their own service to ensure the service continued to fully meet the needs of the people who used it.

The staff also felt fully supported in their various roles by the management and all commented favourably on the variety and scope of the training they had received and the support and encouragement they were provided with by the management.

People told us that the care provided fully met their needs and that all staff provided great support, were trustworthy and professional.

People spoken with were satisfied with the service they received and praised the staff and management team.

We spoke with ten people using the service and three relatives whose family member receive support. We spoke with ten care staff and four management staff during our visit to the service.

People told us their needs were assessed and they were satisfied with the care received. They said staff sought consent before they were helped. People had arrangements in place regarding the ordering, storage and disposal of medicines. Staff were trained and supported people with their medicines. Comments received included, “I’m 100% happy with the care I get. They know what to do and will ask. We have a routine” and “The carers always read the care plan, when they arrive and write down what they’ve done to help me before they go.” We looked at the records for nine people. Risks were assessed and care plans detailed how staff should deliver the support safely.

People received care and support from regular staff that stayed for the right length of time. The electronic care system ensured calls were planned and staff had adequate time to travel between visits.

People were aware of the complaints procedure and were confident to complain. One person said, “If I didn’t like what the carer was doing I would ask them to leave and complain to the office not to send them back.”

Staff and management records were kept up to date and secure. Some people’s care records were not completed accurately and the system to monitor and review the quality of records was not effective.