This inspection of Age Concern Liverpool & Sefton Poppy Centre took place on 21 November 2017. The provider was given 24 hours’ notice. This was because the service provided a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be available to assist with our inspection.

Age Concern Liverpool & Sefton Poppy Centre provides personal care and community support to adults living in Liverpool and Sefton. The service had previously operated from a different location and moved to its current location in August 2016. Not everyone using Age Concern Liverpool & Sefton Poppy Centre 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. At the time of our inspection, the service was providing personal care to six people living in their own homes or in sheltered accommodation in the community. These people funded their own care.

There was no registered manager in post at the service. The last registered manager left in October 2017 and the provider was making efforts to recruit a replacement. Appropriate interim arrangements were in place to manage the service in the absence of 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.

All of the people we spoke with who used the service told us they felt safe when receiving care and support from the staff at Age Concern Liverpool & Sefton Poppy Centre.

Staff schedules showed there was an adequate number of staff employed by the service to meet people’s needs.

People told us that they enjoyed continuity of care in the form of a consistent team with whom they had built good relationships.

A breakdown of each person’s call time stipulated how they wanted to be supported.

Risks were well accessed and information was updated as and when required.

The majority of people who used the service managed their own medication but received prompts and reminders from staff. People told us they were happy with the support they received with their medication. Staff had received training in the safe administration of medicines.

There were robust processes in place to ensure that staff were recruited safely. This included a satisfactory DBS check and two references.

Staff understood how to recognise abuse and how to report concerns or allegations. Staff had received training in ‘Safeguarding of Vulnerable Adults.’

Staff were assisted in their role through induction, observations and an annual appraisal.

The head of service provided us with a staff training plan and this showed staff received training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to support people effectively.

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

The service operated within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People told us that consent was sought and staff offered them choice before providing care.

Staff encouraged people’s independence, in accordance with the provider’s ethos, whilst providing assistance and prompts where necessary.

Staff monitored people's health and welfare needs and acted on issues identified. Health professionals were contacted on people's behalf when needed.

People who used the services of the agency were complimentary regarding staff; they told us all staff were kind and considerate and that they were treated with dignity.

Staff knew people well and understood how they wanted to be supported. Care plans did not alwa