Precious Passionate Care is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to people over the age of 18 years. Not everyone using Precious Passionate Care receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. There were 39 people receiving personal care when we inspected.

This inspection took place on 31 October and 1 and 2 November 2018 and was announced. The provider was given short notice of our intention to inspect the service. This is in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies to make sure the registered manager would be available.

At our previous inspection in September 2017 we rated the service as ‘Requires Improvement’. There were no regulatory breaches. This inspection was to check improvements had been made and to review the ratings.

A registered manager was in post who was also the Company Director. 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.’

People and relatives told us the service was reliable as staff arrived on time and provided the care and support needed without rushing. People received care from staff who were familiar to them as they had been introduced and had an opportunity to get to know the person and their care needs before providing support. People and relatives had confidence in the staff and felt safe with the care staff who visited.

Staff were recruited safely and received the induction, training and support they needed to carry out their roles. Staff understood how to recognise signs of abuse and the action to take if they found or suspected this was happening. Safeguarding incidents were recorded and reported appropriately.

People received person-centred care. People and relatives told us they were involved in decisions about their care and developing their care plans. Care records reflected people’s needs and preferences and showed the support needed from staff on each call. Risks were assessed and plans were in place to manage them. People were supported with their nutritional needs and in accessing healthcare services. People received their medicines when they needed them, although the guidance for staff around when to give ‘as required’ medicines needed to improve.

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 and relatives praised the staff who they said were kind and caring, treated them with respect and maintained their dignity. People and relatives knew how to raise any concerns and there was a complaints procedure in place.

People, relatives and staff felt the service was well-managed and spoke highly of the registered manager. The management team had recently increased to provide additional support to the registered manager. Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the service and ensure ongoing improvements.

The inspection took place on 13, 14 and 19 September 2017 and was announced. This is the first inspection of Precious Passionate Care Ltd.

Precious Passionate Care Ltd is registered to provide personal care to people in their own home. At the time of the inspection 28 people were using the service. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People we spoke with and their relatives said the service was safe. They were very complimentary about the care they received and the care workers and management team who supported them. They had regular contact with the registered manager who was described as wanting ‘to get it right’ and ‘so good’. People felt the service was person centred and were supported to make decisions about their care. Several people told us the provider went the extra mile. People were invited to the provider’s anniversary party to celebrate their first year. This was funded by the provider and held at a community centre with a tribute singer, catering and a champagne toast. Transport was provided.

Care plans contained good information about tasks to complete at each visit and how staff should deliver care. Risks to people who used the service were also assessed. The provider was introducing assessment tools to assist in the assessment of risk. Systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines as prescribed.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and visits were well planned so they met people’s preferences and the same care workers visited which ensured continuity of care. Recruitment checks were carried out but these were not always fully completed before staff were employed. The registered manager agreed to make sure there was a clearer record on file of when employment commenced and the date staff started working directly with people who used a service.

Staff told us the management team and colleagues provided very good support on a day to day basis. Staff received training and supervision to help make sure they understood their role and responsibilities although the supervision matrix only covered the last session so it was difficult to establish all staff had received the required number of sessions over a longer period of time. A development manager had commenced the week of the inspection and was going to be overseeing training and supervision. The provider agreed to develop the induction training programme because it did not include all modules in the care certificate which is an identified set of standards that workers adhere to in their daily working life.

The provider had some effective systems in place to monitor the service and were continuing to develop these. We identified two safeguarding incidents reported to the local safeguarding team should have been sent as notifications to the Care Quality Commission. Once we brought this to the attention of the registered manager they submitted the notifications retrospectively. We have made a recommendation about reporting incidents. Accident records were not always fully completed and lessons learned were not clearly recorded.

People who used the service, relatives and staff said they would feel comfortable raising any concerns or complaints and had opportunities to share their experiences to help improve the service.