This inspection took place on 12 July 2018. We gave the service short notice of our arrival to ensure someone would be available at the office location to meet with us.

Portland Domiciliary Service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats on one central site. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults. This service provides care and support to people living in supported living’ settings, so that they can live as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.' Registering the Right Support CQC policy.

On the day of our inspection there were 10 people using the service.

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 had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC to manage the service. Like 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.

We last inspected the service in June 2016 and rated the service as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.

People told us they felt safe being supported by Portland Domiciliary Service. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to keep people safe. There was an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and relevant vetting checks were carried out. Staff were suitably trained and received regular supervisions and appraisals.

Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and risk assessments were in place. Safeguarding procedures had been correctly followed and staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults.

Health and safety checks were carried out to ensure people were supported to live in a safe environment.

Appropriate arrangements were in place to support people with the safe administration and storage of medicines.

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.

People were supported with their dietary needs and care records contained evidence of visits to and from external healthcare specialists.

People told us they were supported by kind and caring staff members. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and helped to maintain people’s independence by encouraging them to care for themselves where possible.

Care records showed that people’s needs were assessed before they started using the service and support plans were written in a person-centred way. Person-centred means ensuring the person is at the centre of any support plans and their individual wishes, needs and choices are taken into account.

People were protected from social isolation. People were supported to access activities on site and in the community and also undertake voluntary work.

The provider had an effective complaints procedure in place, and people told us they knew how to complain if they wished to.

The provider had an effective quality assurance process in place. People who used the service and staff were regularly consulted about the quality of the service via meetings and surveys.

This inspection tool place on 28 April and 3 May 2016. The inspection was unannounced.

We last inspected this service in February 2013. At that time the service was meeting the regulatory requirements.

Portland provides personal care to people living in their own bungalows. The bungalows are situated on the site of Willington Care Village in Crook and are managed by the registered provider. There are ten bungalows, nine of which are occupied by people who receive care from Portland.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

We found there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs and the registered manager had contingency plans in place should a member of staff report the need to take sick leave.

Staff had been trained to administer people’s medicines safely. We checked people’s medicine administration records and found there were no gaps in people receiving their medicines.

Any risks to people had been assessed by the service and actions put in place to reduce the risks to people. For example where a person was at risk of falls actions had been taken to ensure their risk of falling was minimised.

Staff had been trained in safeguarding people and were confident in reporting their concerns to the registered manager.

We saw all new staff to the service received an induction, were allocated training and then progressed to complete an NVQ in social care. Staff told us they felt supported by the training they had received.

The registered manager and the staff understood the need for people’s mental capacity to be assessed and the need to involve family members and other professions in decisions which affected people. We found the service met the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act.

We found the registered provider had sought people’s consent to have their care delivered by Portland. If people had not been able to give their consent the registered provider had sought consent from their next of kin.

Staff ensured people had enough to eat and drink and had sought advice from medical professionals where people had a poor appetite.

Staff knew what people liked and disliked and understood the needs of the people for whom they provided care. People told us they felt looked after by staff.

The service supported people’s well-being. We found the registered manager understood the need for consistency of care to maintain people’s well-being. We observed staff had good relationships with the people for whom they provided care.

The service had listened to people’s relatives as natural advocates when they had raised concerns or wanted to change the care of their relative.

People’s care needs were described in a person centred way. This meant their plans reflected their individual and specific needs.

The service contacted people’s GP’s when they required attention. Other professional involvement was sought for example from people’s care managers as and when issues arose. The service therefore did not work with people in isolation but involved other professionals as required.

The registered manager had taken people’s complaints seriously, investigated each complaint and provided an outcome of their investigation to the complainant.

Staff and people who used the service made only positive comments about the registered manager to us. We found the registered manager knew people who used the service very well.

The registered provider had in place arrangements for quality managers to visit the homes and carry out audits of the service. The audits resulted in the quality manager advising the registered manager on what actions needed to be taken to improve the service.

The registered manager a

During our inspection we spoke to three people who used the service. One person said ‘This is my home and I don’t want to leave here.” We saw people responded positively to the staff and relationships between staff and the people they supported were good.

We found consent to provide care and treatment was sought from people who used the service.

We saw people were actively engaged in their care plans and their independence was promoted. One person said, “I do the vacuuming”, Two people kept pets and were supported to care for them.

We saw safeguarding people was important to the provider. Staff were trained in safeguarding and regular checks were made to ensure people were safe.

The provider ensured people were protected by undertaking the necessary recruitment checks and recruiting staff of good character.

We found the provider assessed and monitored the quality of the service provision, The provider took action to improve the service when required.

People said they were happy with the support available to them. People told us that they were involved in all aspects of their care. One person said "They are here if I need them" and another said "They help me with my housework."

People told us that they were happy with the care they were receiving. One person said "I enjoy being here, I like it" and another said "If I need any help with anything, they are there." People said they were happy with the staff employed by the service and the care that they provided. One person said "I like the staff to come" and another person told us "We get on well enough."

People told us they felt safe with the carer's employed by the service. One person said "I've never had any bother."

People said they were happy with the service and knew how to raise issues, should they have any. Everyone that we spoke with said they didn't have any complaints or concerns.