The inspection took place on 5 September 2018.The inspection was announced. This meant the registered provider was given 48 hours’ notice of our inspection this was because we needed to be sure that someone would be available to meet with us. This was our first inspection of the service.

The Good Days Project is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to adults with a learning disability, physical disability and people living with autism in their own homes and in the community.

Not everyone using The Good days Project receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.” Registering the Right Support CQC policy

There was a newly appointed manager at the service on the day of the inspection. They were in the process of registration with CQC. 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.

Everyone being supported had a care record. Staff could explain people’s current needs. However, the provider was in the process of transferring the care records onto a new system. This made it difficult to navigate some of the care records we looked at, and therefore it was likely a new member of staff may also struggle to easily find the most recent information relevant to the person's current care and support needs. However it was clear from conversations with staff that they knew people well and how they supported them.

We have made a recommendation that the provider transfer the care plans to the new system and archive any old information as soon as possible to make sure that staff have access to up to date and accurate information and to make sure they can easily access information in the event of an emergency.

People received a safe service because risks to their health and safety were being well managed. We looked at the care records for the people who used the service and these included risk assessments and support plans about keeping the person safe and covered all aspects of daily living. This promoted the person’s independence and ensured their rights to freedom were respected. The risk assessments had been kept under review. The plans detailed the support the person required to maximise their independence and choice, including the management of behaviour that might challenge the service.

People we spoke with told us they felt “safe” and had no worries or concerns. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported and felt confident the registered manager would act on their concerns. We found there were satisfactory arrangements in place to safeguard people who had monies managed by the service.

There were safe recruitment procedures in place so people were cared for by suitably qualified staff who had been assessed as safe to work with people. The provider had a number of job vacancies which they were trying to recruit to. This meant the manager was often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. This meant they had to divide their time between providing direct support and managing the service.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for the safe administration of medicines. Systems