This inspection took place over a period of five days. Visits to the office took place on the 22 and 24 January 2018 and the 8 February 2018. On the 29 January 2018 we carried out interviews with staff. On the 31 January 2018 we carried out visits to people who used the service.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses in the community or within the family home. It provides a service to adults. 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.

Not all of the people using the service were able to verbally tell us their views on the care and support they received. People were able to indicate to us on occasions their thoughts by way of gesture and the use of facial expressions.

A registered manager was 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection of this service in 2015 the service was rated good. During this inspection breaches of legal requirements were found and the service was rated 'Requires Improvement.'

During this inspection we found breaches in relation to the governance of the service and staff recruitment and selection processes You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Staff recruitment procedures were not always safe. Checks on recruitment records demonstrated that the service had not ensured that appropriate references had been sought and application forms had not always been completed. In addition, information relating to people’s Disclosure and Baring Service check had not always been discussed or recorded. This did not demonstrate that robust recruitment checks were being undertaken by the registered provider when recruiting new staff. We checked the provider’s policy with regards to the recruitment and selection of staff and found the provider was not always adhering to their own procedures.

Quality assurance systems were in place which included regular audits carried out by managers within the service. We found that these audits were not always effective. This was because the currently auditing systems had failed to identify that improvements were needed to ensure safer recruitment procedures were in place. In addition we found that the current auditing processes had failed to identify improvements needed to records relating to people’s care. Improvements were also needed to ensure that up to date information and guidance was available within the policies and procedures within the service.

We have made a recommendation in relation to reviewing the process for managing accidents and incidents.

We have made a recommendation in relation to the recording of people’s best interest decision made under the Mental Capacity Act.

We have made a recommendation in relation to the overall management of complaints.

We have made a recommendation about staff training in relation to autism.

Procedures were in place to safeguard people from harm. Staff were aware of the procedures in place and had received training in relation to safeguarding people.

People were generally supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff generally supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the majority of policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff supported people in a kind and caring manner and it was evident that positive relationships had been formed wi