This inspection was announced and took place on 13, 14 and 18 June 2018.

This is the first inspection after the provider reregistered with the Care Quality Commission.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community and specialist housing. It provides a service to older adults, and younger disabled adults. At the time of the inspection 338 people were receiving care in their own homes.

205 of the people receiving personal care were living in extra care housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is rented, and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service. Way Ahead Care – Taunton provided care and support from a housing manager and staff to people living in five specialist ‘extra care’ housing. An additional ‘extra care’ house only had care supplied by the provider.

Not everyone using Way Ahead Care - Taunton 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.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. 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. They were supported by a deputy manager.

Most people with specific health conditions had guidance for staff to follow to ensure their needs were met consistently. Staff had received additional training from other health professionals to support these people. People’s medicine was usually administered safely and in line with their needs. Improvements were required to ensure current national guidance was being followed for ‘as required’ medicines and topical creams. Accidents and incidents had lessons learnt identified and action taken.

Risk assessments were carried out to enable people to retain their independence and receive care with minimum risk to themselves or others. On one occasion we found the risk assessment had not been updated with a person’s changing needs. People were protected from potential abuse because staff were able to recognise signs and knew how to report it. Most people thought there were enough staff. Some people felt staff did run late.

The provider and manager wanted to provide high quality care for people. There were occasions people were unaware who the management were or they did not receive a response. There was a positive approach to improving the service. Staff felt supported and the management had brought about positive improvements. The management had systems to monitor the quality of the service and made improvements in accordance with people’s changing needs. Some of these were more informal so had not identified minor concerns found during the inspection. They had completed statutory notifications in line with legislation to inform external agencies of significant events.

People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. When people lacked capacity actions to ensure the statutory principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had not always been recorded. People and their relatives were positive about the food and meals were prepared to meet people’s needs and wishes.

Staff had the skills and knowledge required to effectively support people. People and their relatives told us their healthcare needs were met