This inspection took place on 28 September 2016. This was an announced inspection.

The provider registered with us in November 2014. This was their first inspection since they have been registered with us.

Vancouver House, also known as Wisteria Care, provides a domiciliary care service to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection, 21 people were receiving the regulated activity, personal care, from the provider.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our visit. 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 service was not always safe or well led because the provider had not always ensured that they had followed safe recruitment practices and risk assessments and care plans were not always consistent in providing significant information to staff. The provider had not always implemented effective quality assurance practices to identify the shortfalls found during the inspection and information that they were legally obliged to tell us had not been sent.

People were protected from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm as staff were aware of the processes they needed to follow. People were supported by enough members of staff who knew them well enough to ensure their needs were met. We also found that people received their prescribed medicines as required.

The service was responsive because care was planned in a person centred way that took in to consideration people’s individual care needs.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and monitored to identify any risks associated with nutrition and hydration and they had food they enjoyed. People were also supported to maintain good health because staff worked closely with other health and social care professionals when necessary.

The service was caring because people were supported by staff that were friendly, caring and supportive. People received the care they wanted based on their personal preferences and likes and dislikes because staff took the time to get to know people well. People were also cared for by staff who respected their privacy and dignity.

People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and were supported to express their views in all aspects of their lives including the care and support that was provided to them, as far as reasonably possible.

People received care and support with their consent, where possible and people’s rights were protected because key processes had been fully followed to ensure people were not unlawfully restricted.

People and their relatives felt involved in the planning and review of their care because staff communicated with them in ways they could understand. People were also encouraged to offer feedback on the quality of the service and knew how to complain.