We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014. 

We undertook an announced inspection to Snowball Care on 16 July 2014. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be coming. Snowball Care provides personal care services to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 19 people were receiving a personal care service. 16 people were funding their own care through direct payments. The other three people had their care purchased by a London Borough.

At our last inspection in October 2013 the service was meeting the regulations inspected.

People were kept safe and free from harm. There were appropriate numbers of staff employed to meet people’s needs and provide a flexible service. Staff were able to accommodate last minute changes to appointments as requested by the person who used the service or their relatives.

Staff received regular training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and support needs.

Staff knew the people they were supporting and provided a personalised service. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care. People told us they liked the staff and looked forward to the staff coming to their homes.

People were supported to eat and drink. Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and liaised with their GP and other healthcare professionals as required to meet people’s needs.

The manager was accessible and approachable. Staff, people who used the service and relatives felt able to speak with the manager and provided feedback on the service. The manager undertook spot checks to review the quality of the service provided.

We carried out a short notice inspection of this domiciliary care agency. At the time of our inspection, sixteen people were using the service.

All the people we spoke with told us they were very pleased with the care and support they had received. People described the service as ‘excellent’, ‘flexible’ and ‘kind’.

People who used the service were kept informed and properly engaged in giving consent where needed. Their needs were assessed and their care was properly planned. Staff carried out regular checks on the quality of care. People were protected by good infection control procedures.

New staff received an induction, training and support for their role.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided. People who used the service gave regular verbal feedback; there was regular contact and review visits by the staff. Formal feedback surveys were given to people regularly. The service had systems to manage and review risks, incidents and complaints.

Snowball Care provided care to people from the Bangladeshi and other Asian communities. At the time of the inspection there were two care staff, including the registered person and four people using the service.

We spoke with two people who use the service and/ or their relatives. People felt that they had been involved in choosing how they wanted to be cared for and their preferences had been met. They told us that they were "very happy" with the service and felt that they were well cared for. People were assessed by staff before they started using the service to ensure that Snowball Care could meet their health and care needs. There were systems in place to respond to emergencies.

People were cared for by staff that had had the appropriate pre-employment checks, including a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB)check. There were safeguarding policies and procedures in place and people told us that staff were "gentle" and "sympathetic".

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided. People were encouraged to give verbal feedback to their carer at each visit and formal feedback was collected at monthly monitoring visits. Staff were required to complete a daily log of tasks undertaken and submit these to the provider's head office for monitoring purposes. There were systems in place to report any incidents and to investigate complaints. At the time of the inspection there had been no formal complaints or adverse incidents.