This inspection took place on 21 October and was announced.

1-1 Private Care Domiciliary Care Agency (DCA) provides personal care services to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 47 people were receiving a personal care service.

There was a registered manager 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.

People told us they were safe. Staff understood their responsibilities to identify and report all concerns in relation to safeguarding people from abuse. Staff had completed safeguarding training.

The service sought people's views and opinions and acted upon them. People and their relatives told us they were confident they would be listened to and action would be taken if they raised a concern. Where risks to people had been identified risk assessments were in place and action had been taken to manage the risks. Staff were aware of people's needs and followed guidance to keep them safe.

People received their medicines as prescribed. Records confirmed where people needed support with their medicines, they were supported by staff that had been appropriately trained. The registered manager and senior care staff carried out observations on staff to ensure that the correct standard of care was being delivered.

Staff spoke positively about the support they received from senior care staff and the registered manager. Staff had access to effective supervision. People told us and staffing rotas confirmed there were sufficient staff to meet people's needs.

People were supported by staff who had the skills and training to carry out their roles and responsibilities. People benefitted from caring relationships with the staff who had a caring approach to their work. The service had robust recruitment procedures and conducted background checks to ensure staff were suitable for their role.

The registered manager and staff understood the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and applied its principles in their work. The MCA protects the rights of people who may not be able to make particular decisions themselves.

Staff and the registered manager shared the visions and values of the service and these were embedded within service delivery. The service had systems to assess the quality of the service provided. Learning from audits took place which promoted people's safety and quality of life.

People were supported to maintain good health. Various health professionals were involved in assessing, planning and evaluating people's care and treatment.

We spoke to five people who use the service, one relative and four members of staff. We reviewed documents including five care plans and three staff files.

People we spoke to said that carers respected their privacy and dignity. One person said that this aspect of care was “very good” while another person described staff as “kind, gentle and nice.”

People valued the care they received. A person told us “I couldn’t manage without them.”

People told us they felt their safety was promoted by the service. One person said it “gives me confidence”.

The provider had mechanisms in place to assess and monitor service quality. A person who uses the service said “I think they’re absolutely great. I’m very pleased with them.”

People that used the service and relatives we spoke with expressed a good level of satisfaction. People told us that staff were ‘’very helpful, real carers’’ and ‘’they listen to me’’.

We saw that people made choices about how their care was to be delivered. Where people needed support with making decisions we saw that the provider had included all relevant parties.

People we spoke with confirmed that they had care plans that were regularly reviewed with their input. We saw people were supported to maintain their independence.

We found that people’s care plans were detailed and individualised. People told us that their care was delivered taking account of their wishes and preferences.

We found that the provider had arrangements in place to manage medicines appropriately and safely. We spoke with staff and they knew and implemented these arrangements consistently. Some people told us they managed their own medicines.

We saw that staff were supported and appraised to ensure that they were competent to deliver care appropriately. Staff we spoke with told us that they found working for the provider to be ‘’very good’’, and ‘’there is always support’’.

The provider had a comprehensive complaints system in place. People told us that they knew how to make a complaint. A relative we spoke with told us ‘’I feel comfortable contacting the office if I have any concerns. I never worry that it will affect the care my mother gets from them’’.

We spoke with ten people that used the service and/or their primary carer, relative or advocate. The majority were complimentary about the service. They told us that staff usually arrived on time and stayed for the required length of time. They told us the care provided, centred on their needs and wishes and staff were caring, kind and respectful. People made positive comments about the service, such as "the staff are very good, they do more for me than I expected", " they are always cheerful and ready to listen" and "I can't speak highly enough of them, they are very helpful". One person said, "the carers are sometimes a little late, but that’s understandable, generally the girls from the agency are marvellous". One person gave us a negative comment about continuity of staff that cared for them, they said "sometimes its different carers who visit me, some seem inexperienced".