This service 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 to older adults.

The inspection took place between 6 May 2018 and 25 May 2018 and was announced.

The service was last inspection in October 2014 and was compliant with the standards that we looked at. From September 2016 to January 2018, the service was dormant, meaning that it was not providing the regulated activity ‘personal care.’ Since January 2018, the service has been providing personal care to one service user.

A registered manager was in place. 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.

We found appropriate care and support was provided to the person receiving the service. Positive feedback was received from the person and their relative and no concerns were raised.

Overall medicines were managed safely although a few improvements were needed to the documentation of medicine support.

Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed although some of these needed to be more detailed.

Staff delivering care and support knew people well, and the person and relative said the person was safe in the company of staff.

Staff were recruited correctly to help ensure they were of suitable character to work with vulnerable people. There were enough staff to ensure a reliable service was provided. Staff received appropriate support and training to undertake their role.

We were told appropriate support was provided at mealtimes in line with the person’s needs and preferences.

The service was compliant with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Staff were kind and caring and demonstrated they were dedicated to providing personalised care and support. Care was delivered by a small and consistent team who had got to know the person well.

Appropriate care was provided that met the person’s needs. We found discrimination was not a feature of the service and the person’s individual needs and requirements were catered for. Independence was promoted by the service.

Good feedback was provided about the overall quality of the service. We saw a flexible and personalised approach to service delivery.

Some improvements were needed to documentation to ensure it provided a full account of the person’s care and support needs. Policies and procedural documents needed updating to ensure they were fully relevant to the support staff were providing. We made a recommendation regarding the improvement of documentation and procedural documents.

We considered all the evidence gathered from reviewing records and speaking with people. We used the information to answer the five key questions we always ask;

• Is the service safe?

• Is the service effective?

• Is the service caring?

• Is the service responsive?

• Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found. The summary describes the records we looked at and what people who used the service and the staff told us.

On the date of the inspection, the service was providing limited personal care to one person. We spoke to a relative of the person who said they were happy with the level of care and support provided.

Is the service safe?

The service was safe. Systems were in place to assess risks to people in order to keep them safe. Safe recruitment procedures were followed to ensure staff were suitable for the role.

Is the service effective?

The service was effective. Staff were provided with appropriate training and support to enable them to carry out their role effectively. Staff told us they felt well supported. A relative said that staff were effective and knew how to care for their relative.

Is the service caring?

The service was caring. A relative told us staff were kind and caring when they visited, arrived on time and did not rush. We saw people’s likes and preferences had been recorded to enable staff to deliver personalised care. The staff member we spoke with knew about people’s individual needs and preferences so personalised care could be provided.

Is the service responsive?

The service was responsive. Systems were in place to assessed people’s needs so appropriate care could be delivered. A relative told us the service was responsive to their needs, for example being flexible in the hours that care and support could be provided. Systems were in place to log and respond to complaints.

Is the service well led?

The service was well led. The relative we spoke with reported that management were effective and approachable. They said they felt able to raise any issues with the manager and were confident they would be resolved. Quality assurance processes were in place to monitor customer satisfaction with the care provided.