This inspection took place on 22 May 2017 and was announced.

Support Asia is a domiciliary care service registered to provide personal care to people within their own homes. At the time of the inspection the service was providing support and personal care to 30 people who were living in their own homes or within 'supported living' facilities within the community. Supported living enables people who need personal or social support to live in their own home supported by care staff as an alternative to living in a care home or with family.

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.

At our last inspection of this service in April 2016 we found the provider was meeting the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. However we did identify some areas that required improvement in relation to the service not working in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and staff had not received training in relation to this legislation. Care plans needed more detailed information about people’s needs, and systems were not in place to review the care records completed by staff.

On this inspection we found the provider had made all of the required improvements since our last inspection. However we found that some of the audits the provider had introduced needed to be more effective in order to identify shortfalls with the records that were returned to the office. We also found the provider had not displayed their quality rating in the public area of the office on our arrival. The provider did take action to address this at the time of our visit.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who had undergone recruitment checks to ensure they were safe to work. Staff understood how to report concerns on abuse and manage risks to keep people safe. People were supported with their medication by staff who had received training in how to do this.

Staff had access to training and supervision to support them in their role. Staff understood the importance of seeking consent in line with Mental Capacity Act 2005 and knew how to support people to make their own decisions. Staff monitored the health and wellbeing of people and knew the action to take if someone became unwell.

People and relatives described staff as kind and caring, and confirmed staff treated people with dignity and respect. People were involved in the planning and review of their care. People felt supported by staff who knew them well. People and relatives knew how to make a complaint if needed.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the registered manager and the leadership of the service. People and relatives made positive comments about the service they received.

The Inspection took place on 20 April 2016 and was announced. We told the provider that we were going to visit 48 hours before our inspection. This was because the service provided domiciliary care and we wanted to ensure that staff would be available to talk with us about the service. At our last inspection of this service on 29 April 2014 we found that they were meeting all the regulations that we assessed.

Support Asia Limited is registered to provide personal care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of the inspection the service was providing support and personal care to 36 people who were living in their own homes or within five ‘supported living’ facilities within the community. Supported living enables people who need personal or social support to live in their own home supported by care staff as an alternative to living in a care home or with family.

There was a registered manager in post who was present throughout our inspection. 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.

The systems in place to monitor the quality of the service had not always been effective at identifying where improvements were needed. Improvements were needed to ensure staff had an understanding of the legislation relating to people’s capacity and robust auditing of people’s care records needed to be in place to ensure people received effective care.

People and their relatives told us that they felt safe with their staff. Staff were trained in safeguarding adults and understood how to protect people from abuse.

People had been involved in the planning of their care and received care and support in line with their plan of care. People told us that staff were usually on time for their care call. People who needed help with their medicines received the help they needed.

Risks to people were minimised because there were arrangements in place to manage identified risks with people’s care. Checks were carried out prior to staff starting work to ensure their suitability to work with people who used the service.

Staff gained people’s consent before providing care and ensured people were supported to make day to day choices. Relatives told us that they were involved in making decisions for people who were unable to make decisions for themselves.

People were able to raise concerns and generally felt that they received a good response from the office staff. People were happy with the service they received and told us staff were caring, their only concern was that there had been a lot of staff changes.

We spoke to five people and relatives of people who used the service and five staff.

People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were clear. Staff knew their responsibilities and understood how to keep each person safe.

People’s health and care needs were assessed when they were first referred to the service. People told us they were always involved in writing their own care records, together with relatives where the person wished.

The service took account of people’s personal preferences and any diverse needs, which meant that care and support was then provided as people wished.

People told us they knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. People could be confident that any issue anyone raised were resolved quickly.

We saw a quality assurance system that identified, and looked to resolve issues as they arose. As a result of this, the service was continuously striving to improve.

Staff we spoke to told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff were provided with a clear understanding of the aims of the service and their responsibilities concerning monitoring and supporting people.

We gave short notice of our inspection. We did this to enable us to make a judgement about the service provided. At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care and support to 21 people. We spoke with four people using the service and five relatives. We spoke with the registered manager, the service manager, and five members of staff. We also looked at three sets of care records for people using the service.

Care plans and risk assessment were in place to support people's needs and care was person centred so that people received care in the way that they preferred. One person told us,"I mostly like cooking and staff supervise me with it".

Safeguarding procedures were in place so that staff would recognise and report any allegations of abuse to protect people from the risk of harm.

Recruitment processes were in place which gave people using the service some assurances that only suitable staff had been employed.

People were cared for by staff who were supported, supervised and trained to deliver care to an appropriate standard. One person told us, "The staff are very nice and helpful".

Systems were in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. One relative told us, "I am very happy with the service".