My Care at Home Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own home. It provides a service to adults. At the time of this announced inspection of 5 and 7 September 2018 there were 43 people who used the service. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because we wanted to be certain the manager and key staff would be available on the day of our inspection. We also wanted to give them sufficient time to seek agreements with people so that we could visit them in their homes to find out about their experience of using the service.

At our last inspection on 28 January 2016, we rated the service overall good. The key questions safe effective, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated good.

At this inspection 05 and 07 September 2018, we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The service continued to provide people with a safe service. Care staff understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe. Risks to people continued to be managed well, including from abuse and in their daily lives. The service learned from incidents to improve the service. Care workers had been recruited safely and there were enough care staff to cover people’s planned visits. Where people required assistance to take their medicines there were arrangements in place to provide this support safely. Systems were in place to reduce the risks of cross infection.

The service continued to provide people with an effective service. Care workers were trained and supported to meet people’s needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Where required, people were supported with their dietary needs. People were supported to maintain good health and access healthcare services where needed. The service worked with other organisations in people’s care to provide a consistent service.

The service continued to provide people with a caring service. Care workers had developed good relationships with people. They consistently protected people’s privacy and dignity and promoted their independence.

The service continued to provide people with a responsive service. People received care that was assessed, planned and delivered to meet their individual needs. People’s care records were accurate and reflected the care and support provided. Where required there were systems in place to care for people at the end of their lives. The service listened to people’s experiences, concerns and complaints and acted where needed.

The service continued to provide a well-led service. A system of audits ensured the provider had oversight of the quality and safety of the service and shortfalls were identified and addressed. There was a culture of listening to people and positively learning from events so similar incidents were not repeated. As a result, the quality of the service continued to develop.

My Care at Home Limited provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes. When we inspected on 27 January 2016 there were 45 people using the service.

This was an announced inspection. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to know that someone would be available.

There was no registered manager at My Care at Home. 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. A manager had been appointed by the provider to run the service and was in the process of registering with the CQC.

People we spoke with including their relatives were complimentary about the care provided. They told us they received safe and effective care by care workers who were kind and compassionate.

Systems were in place which safeguarded the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. Care workers knew how to recognise and report any suspicions of abuse. They understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe and actions were taken when they were concerned about people’s safety.

There were procedures and processes in place to ensure the safety of the people who used the service. These included risk assessments which identified how the risks to people were minimised.

Where people required assistance to take their medicines there were arrangements in place to provide this support safely.

There were sufficient numbers of care workers who had been recruited safely and who had the skills and knowledge to provide care and support to people in the way they preferred. Care workers respected people’s privacy and dignity and interacted with them in a caring and compassionate manner.

People received care and support which was planned and delivered to meet their specific needs. People and/or their representatives, where appropriate, were involved in making decisions about their care and support arrangements.

Where required people were safely supported with their dietary needs. Where care workers had identified concerns in people’s wellbeing there were systems in place to contact health and social care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment.

There was an open and transparent culture in the service. The management team demonstrated effective leadership skills and care workers said they felt valued and supported. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in providing safe and good quality care to the people who used the service.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to voice their concerns if they were unhappy with the care they received. People’s feedback was valued and acted on. The service had a quality assurance system with identified shortfalls addressed promptly; this helped the service to continually improve.