The inspection took place on 20 and 21 September 2016. Both days of the inspection were announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because the location provides a domiciliary care service. We needed to be sure that the registered manager would be available to speak with us.

Voyage (DCA) Leicestershire provides personal care to adults with a variety of needs living in their own homes. This included people living with learning disabilities or autism spectrum disorder, people with physical disabilities and younger adults. At the time of the inspection there were 47 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager. 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 registered manager was on leave. There was an interim manager in place.

People were protected from the risk of harm because identified risks were managed safely and recruitment checks had taken place. Staff understood what constituted abuse or poor practice and how to report any concerns that they had. The provider dealt with accidents and incidents appropriately and reviewed these to try and prevent reoccurrences.

Where people displayed behaviour that may be deemed as challenging, staff had training and guidance available to them. We found there were enough staff to support people safely during our visit.

People’s equipment was regularly checked and there were plans to keep people safe during significant events such as a fire. The building was well maintained and kept in a safe condition. Evacuation plans had been written for each person, to help support them safely in the event of an emergency.

People’s medicines were handled safely and were given to them in accordance with their prescriptions. People’s GPs and other healthcare professionals were contacted for advice whenever necessary.

Staff received appropriate support through an induction and regular supervision. There was an on-going training programme to provide and update staff on safe ways of working.

People chose their own food and drink and were supported to maintain a balanced diet. They had access to healthcare services when required to promote their well-being.

People were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found that people were supported to make their own decisions. Where people were unable to consent they were supported in their best interest.

People received support from staff who showed kindness and compassion. Their dignity and privacy was protected including staff discussing people in a professional and discreet manner. Staff knew people’s communication preferences.

People were supported to be as independent as they could be. Skills that people had were developed and maintained. Staff knew people’s preferences and had involved people in planning their own support.

People knew how to make a complaint. The provider had a complaints policy in place that was available for people and their relatives. However, some relatives felt that complaints had not been resolved. Complaints had not always been resolved within the timescales in the provider’s procedure.

People and their relatives had contributed to the planning and review of their support. People had support plans that were person centred and staff knew how to support people based on their preferences and how they wanted to be supported. People took part in activities and hobbies that they enjoyed.

The provider had not always notified us of all incidents they were required to report.

The service was led by a registered manager who understood the requirements under the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 20