This inspection took place on the 10 October 2016 and was announced. We gave 48 hours’ notice of the inspection to ensure that staff would be available in the office, as this is our methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies.

Smartcare Epsom is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care to 32 people.

A registered manager was 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.

Risks had been identified to the health and safety of service users, however, some assessments of how to minimise risk had not been produced for three people.

Care plans were in place for people, however, they had not been written in a person centred way and some information in relation to people’s needs had not been clearly explained.

People told us they felt the service was safe. They told us that staff were very kind and they had no concerns in relation to their safety. Staff had received training in relation to safeguarding and they were able to describe the types of abuse and the processes to be followed when reporting suspected or actual abuse.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored by staff at the home to help minimise the risk of repeated events.

Staff had received training, supervisions and annual appraisals that helped them to perform their duties. They also received spot checks whilst they were working with people. New staff commencing their duties undertook the Care Certificate training to help prepare them for their role.

There were enough staff to ensure that people’s assessed needs could be met and all visits could be undertaken in a timely manner. It was clear that staff had a good understanding of how to attend to people’s needs.

Medicines were managed in a safe way and recording of medicines was completed to show people had received the medicines they required.

Staff had received training and understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and always sought people’s consent before undertaking any tasks.

The provider ensured that full recruitment checks had been carried out so that only suitable staff worked with people at the service.

People’s nutritional needs were met by staff who would either cook meals or heat microwave meals for people. Healthcare professionals were involved in people’s care or the service liaised with them.

People were supported by staff to remain as independent as they were able. People were encouraged to do things they would normally do such as washing themselves.

People told us that staff showed kindness and compassion and their privacy and dignity were upheld and promoted by staff.

If an emergency occurred at the office or there were adverse weather conditions, people’s care would not be interrupted as there were procedures in place. There was an on-call system for assistance outside of normal working hours.

A complaints procedure was available for any concerns and people had been provided with a copy of this document.

The registered manager and senior staff undertook quality assurance audits to help ensure the care provided was of a standard people should expect.

People, their relatives and associated professionals had been asked for their views about the care provided and how the service was run. People felt their views were listened. The registered manager had acted on issues raised.

Staff informed that they felt supported by the registered manager and they had an open door policy and were approachable.

During the inspection we made one recommendation around one regulation. Details of these are shown on the full report.