We carried out an announced inspection of the service on 5 January 2017. QRC Dom Care is registered to provide personal care for adults, some of who may be living with a learning disability such autism spectrum disorder. People supported by this service either live in their own homes, or in shared accommodation with others. At the time of the inspection there were 11 people being supported with their personal care.

On the day of our inspection there was registered manager in place. 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 were supported by staff to feel safe within their home. People were supported by staff who could identify the different types of abuse and who to report concerns to. Assessments of the risks to people’s safety were in place and regularly reviewed. This included how to evacuate people from their homes in an emergency. There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and experienced staff in place to keep people safe. Safe recruitment processes were in place. People’s medicines were managed safely.

Staff were well trained, received regular supervision and felt supported by the registered manager. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were not always considered when decisions were made for people. People were supported to plan, buy and where able, to cook their own food and were encouraged to follow a healthy and balanced diet. People’s day to day health needs were met effectively by the staff. Healthcare professionals spoke positively about the way staff supported people with their day to day health needs.

Staff spoke respectfully about people and relatives felt they were kind and caring and treated their family members with respect and dignity. Where able, people were involved with decisions made about their care and support, with relatives and professional input included where needed. Information was available for people if they wished to speak with an independent advocate and we saw one had been used to support a person with making a specific decision. People were supported to live as independently as they wanted to.

People were supported to take part in the activities that were important to them; this included attending college or finding employment. People’s support records were person centred, focused on what was important to each person and provided staff with relevant information to respond to people’s needs. A robust pre-admission assessment was carried out to ensure new people’s needs could be met. No formal complaints had been received, but processes were in place to respond to them effectively if they were.

A person who used the service, relatives, staff and health care professionals all spoke highly of the registered manager. A number of systems were in place that enabled a wide range of people, staff and relatives to give their views about the service. Staff, including the registered manager had a clear understand of their roles and responsibilities. Robust quality assurance processes were in place.

At the time of our inspection, QRC Dom Care provided care for 22 people with a learning disability. The people who used the service rented varied accommodation in three individual locations. We looked at seven sets of records for people who used the service, six staff files, and the service's policies and procedures. We spoke with six relatives of people who used the service, the registered manager, and six members of staff.

We found that people's support plans and risk assessments were reviewed regularly and updated when changes were identified.

A relative told us, "This agency provides excellent care, I cannot fault them, the care workers are caring, knowledgeable and patient". Another relative said, "The staff are lovely and kind, the quality of care is very good".

We found that the service had an effective recruitment process in place. The staff were subjected to essential criminal and reference checks, and followed a comprehensive induction and training programme. One member of staff told us, "My induction was very thorough, I had to shadow senior staff and complete an induction pack to demonstrate my competence before working by myself. With this and with all the training we get, I have learned a lot".

We found that staffing levels were planned according to people's levels of dependency and that there was enough staff to meet people's needs. A member of staff told us, "There are enough of us, we meet the residents' needs".

We found the service had an appropriate complaint policy and procedures in place. People who used the service and their relatives or representatives were aware of how to make a complaint. One person said, "We know how to complain but quite honestly it never comes to that, if we have any concerns we just discuss it with the keyworker, or the service co-ordinator or the manager and it gets sorted straight away".

We saw that the services' records were accurate, regularly updated and fit for purpose. We found appropriate documentation was kept in relation to people's care and finances, staff, policies, surveys and audits. There was an effective system for the storage, archiving and disposal of records that met legal requirements.

During our visit we spoke with two relatives of people who used the service and four staff members; these were the manager, the registered manager, a senior care worker and two care workers. We also took information from other sources to help us understand the views of people who used the service, which included a satisfaction survey and meeting minutes.

The people we spoke with told us they were happy with the care that their relatives had received and with the staff team. A relative of a person who used the service told us “Our son is so happy and he is really looked after”. Another relative of a person who used the service we spoke with told us “He is very happy actually and they support him well”. Staff that we spoke with had a good understanding of the support needs of the people who used the service. One member of staff told us “I feel that we support people to be independent, we only support them with what they need, when they need it”.

During our visit, staff we spoke with confirmed that they had felt supported and had received relevant training, which had included the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. We saw that the service had ensured that staff were able to deliver care and treatment safely through regular training and assessments. The service had quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and to gain the views of the people who used the service.