The inspection took place on 16 July 2018. We told the provider two working days before our visit that we would be coming because the location provides a domiciliary care service for people in their own homes and staff might be out visiting people.

This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered in July 2017.

Surrey Quality Care Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service for older people, some who were living with the experience of dementia, and younger adults with disabilities. At the time of our inspection 45 people were using the service. The agency operated in the Surrey towns of Dorking, Redhill, Reigate and Horley. Some people had their care funded by the local authority or National Health Service, whilst others paid for their own care. The service was the only location for the provider, who were a private organisation.

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At this inspection we have rated the service requires improvement overall and in the key questions of ''Is the service safe?'' and ''Is the service well-led?'' This was because we found some aspects of the service did not always ensure people received safe care and treatment. And the systems for identifying this were not always effective. However, the provider supplied us with evidence that they took immediate action to improve these areas of the service following our inspection visit. We have rated the key questions of, ''Is the service effective?'', ''Is the service caring?'' and ''Is the service responsive?'' as good.

People told us they felt safe with the service and with the care workers who supported them. Some people reported that visits did not always take place at the planned time or care workers did not stay the full allocated time. From the records we viewed, we saw that most visits took place on time, although many visits were shorter than the allocated time. The registered manager told us that this was sometimes the choice of people using the service. Following the inspection visit, they introduced a system so senior staff would investigate why any visits were shorter than expected each week. This meant that if this was not the choice the person action could be taken.

People told us they received support with their medicines. However, we found a large number of medicines administration records we viewed had not been signed to show whether these had been administered. The provider's audits of these had identified gaps but had failed to improve practice to make sure staff followed the correct procedures for recording administration. The staff also used an electronic system for recording medicines administration, and in some cases they had signed the electronic records but not the paper ones. Following our inspection visit, the registered manager introduced more robust and regular auditing which asked the auditor to record the action they took if they found any problems with medicines management.

The provider's systems for identifying risks and concerns were not always effective. Whilst they took action to respond to concerns we identified, they had not previously acted on these.

People told us that the care workers were kind, thoughtful and compassionate. They had good relationships with them and told us they had the skills they needed to care for them. A small number of people spoke about specific concerns, which we discussed with the registered manager and felt confident these had been appropriately dealt with.

People told us they were involved in planning and reviewing their care. They fe