Selborne Care Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. At the time of our inspection the provider was providing personal care for six people all of whom lived in Worcester.

Not everyone using Selborne Care Limited 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 consider any wider social care provided.

At the last inspection on 2 February 2016, the service was rated 'Good.' At this inspection we found evidence continued to support the overall rating of 'Good.' There is no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrates serious risk 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.

This inspection took place on 28 September 2018.

People continued to received care which protected them from harm and abuse. Staff and management were aware of their responsibilities to keep people safe. Risks to people’s safety were identified and known to staff. Measures were in place to reduce risks. Staff worked in small teams with people to provide consistent care. The provider operated safe recruitment practices to assist keeping people safe.

People were able to access healthcare professionals and their medicines were administered in line with what was prescribed. People received meals in line with their personal likes and any medical requirements.

Staff received training to meet people’s needs and had knowledge to be able to meet health and social care needs as described within their care plan and risk assessment. Staff assured us they sought people’s consent prior to providing care and support.

People were supported by staff who knew them well and had built up professional relationships. People were encouraged to be involved in their care and to be as independent as possible. Staff had an awareness of how to ensure people’s privacy and dignity was maintained.

People continued to receive care and support which was individual to their own needs. Relatives felt able to raise any concerns they had about the care received by their family member. The management team promoted equality and diversity to ensure needs were met.

Staff were confident the service was well run and had managers available to them for support and guidance. Checks and audits were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We undertook an announced inspection on 2 February 2016. We gave the registered manager 48 hour’s notice of our intention to undertake an inspection. This was because the organisation provides a domiciliary care service to people in their homes and or the family home we needed to be sure that someone would be available at the office.

The provider registered this service with us to provide personal care and support for people with learning disabilities who live in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 4 people received care and support services. 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.

People were supported to make safe choices in relation to taking risks in their day to day lives. Staff had been trained and understood how to support people in a way which protected them from danger, harm and abuse.

Staff had been recruited following appropriate checks on their suitability to support people in their homes and keep them safe. The registered manager had arrangements in place to make sure there were sufficient care staff to provide support to people in their own homes and when going out in the community. Relatives and staff told us people who used the service received reliable care from a regular team of staff who understood their likes, dislikes and preferences for care and support.

Medicines were administered by staff that had received training to do this. There were procedures in place to check people had received their medicines as prescribed to effectively and safely meet their health needs.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to support people’s needs. They were supported in their roles and attended training that was relevant to the people they looked after.

People were involved as much as possible in the support they received and were enabled by staff who knew them well to make their own everyday decisions about their care. When people could not make their own decisions these were made on their behalf and in their best interests by people who knew them to make sure their rights were protected.

People were supported by staff who knew them well and had good relationships with them. Staff made sure people were involved in their own care and made sure information was given to them in a way they could understand. People’s independence was encouraged and staff respected their privacy and dignity.

People had a choice of food to eat and were assisted to maintain a diet which met their nutritional and health needs. People’s routine health needs were looked after and people had access to healthcare when they needed it.

Staff provided care and support to people which was personalised and responded to changes in their needs. People’s preferences and wishes were known to staff and were respected.

Regular checks were completed by the registered manager to monitor the quality of service which staff provided and improvements were made where needed.

People, relatives and staff were able to share their views about the service provided and were listened to. The ethos of the service was to put people first and this was echoed by the management and staff team. Relatives were happy with the care people received and the support staff gave them.

When we carried out our inspection of the agency it provided personal care for adults in their own home. We were unable to hold conversations with the people who used the agency due to their communication difficulties. We spoke with the registered manager and two staff who worked at the agency office. In addition we spoke with three members of staff who visited people to provide care. Following our inspection we spoke with relatives, health professionals and social workers about the care people who used the service had received.

We found that people had been involved with their care and treatment and they had received care that met the care and welfare needs. The agency demonstrated that they had reviewed and updated people's care information monthly or sooner if required.

We looked at how the agency had kept people safe. We found that staff had understood how to report any areas of concerns to protect people who received care. The agency was able to show that they had taken appropriate action to report any concerns to the local authority.

Staff we spoke with told us that they had received regular training and support from the provider. Staff told us: “I’ve just had some training in total communication” and: “It’s a very supportive staff group”.

The provider and registered manager had taken steps to monitor and assess the quality of care and support provided to people who used the agency.