This inspection visit took place on the 2 November 2016 and was an announced inspection. This meant that we gave the service notice of our arrival so that we could ensure someone was available at the office. We undertook telephone calls with people that used the service on 7 and 8 November 2016.

The service is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection there were 78 adults using the service. The service provides re-enablement to people with the aim of increasing their independence. It is provided for a period of up to six weeks.

There was a registered manager for this service, who was available every day. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Systems were in place to reduce the risk of people experiencing harm or abuse. Staff had been trained in adult safeguarding procedures and could identify what to do if they considered someone was at risk of harm, or if they needed to report concerns. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and actions taken to minimise these occurring.

There were sufficient staff to keep people safe and meet their needs, and the registered manager had followed safe recruitment procedures to make sure the staff employed were safe to work within care. Staff were competent with medicines management and could explain the processes they followed.

Referrals were made to appropriate health care professionals where necessary to support people with their healthcare needs. People’s consent was sought before support was provided. If people were unable to make their own choices about the support, the staff always acted in their best interests.

The service provided individualised care according to each person’s needs and preferences. People and their relatives were involved in assessment and reviews of people’s needs. Staff had knowledge of people’s changing needs and supported them to be involved in making decisions about their care.

Staff were caring, knew people well, and supported people in a dignified and respectful way. Staff acknowledged people’s privacy and had positive caring relationships with them.

Quality assurance systems were in place to ensure people received good quality care. These were reviewed regularly to make sure they remained effective at doing this.

This service was for people who required support for a short period of time whilst they recovered from an illness or accident. We found from the information we read and the comments received from people that the service was meeting these aims.

Ten people spoken with were complimentary about the service they received. Some of the words used to describe the service were, ‘first rate’, ‘excellent’, ‘supportive’, ‘skilled staff’, ‘encouraging’, ‘polite and courteous’. One person said, “The service is so good. It has helped me to become independent again.” Another person said, “I cannot rate the carers highly enough. They are kind, give me time and support me with all I need.” A third person said, “I would recommend the carers to anyone. I have no complaints what so ever.”

The service had access to a system called the ‘hub’. This gave staff a central point of contact to access further help or to refer on to various professionals when required. This ensured the people using this service received support to meet their various needs.

People were supported by trained staff with their medications. This support met their individual needs, promoted their independence and ensured procedures used were safe.

Staff were recruited to this re-enablement service appropriately and thoroughly. We found personnel files held all the correct records to ensure employed staff were suitable to do the work required.

Monitoring of the quality of the service was carried out by management to ensure the service was performing appropriately. Concerns were acted upon and people using the service had information on how to complain if they needed to.

People spoken with were very satisfied with the agency and the way they were being supported. They told us that the staff were polite and respectful. One described the support they had as 'excellent'. Another told us, "I can't speak highly enough of them." They felt that staff understood the care they needed and encouraged them to regain some of their independence. This was confirmed in some of the records we saw in the office, showing that staff worked hard to try and encourage 'reablement' as the aim of the support they offered.

People felt that the staff were competent and knew what they were doing. We found that many of the staff had worked for the service for a long time and so gained experience as well as accessing regular training. Staff received regular appraisal of their performance.

People were asked for their views about the service and what could improve. Overwhelmingly the comments on surveys were positive and people felt they received good quality care. This was reinforced by the people we spoke with.