The inspection took place on 6 December 2016. Akaba Social UK Limited provides a domiciliary care service which offers personal care, companionship and domestic help to support people living in their own home as well as people living in supported living accommodation. They are currently supporting 22 people in supported living and five people in their own home.

The service has 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.

People were safeguarded from the potential of harm and their freedoms protected. People were cared for safely by staff who had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks had been completed. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Staff had received regular training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people. The service worked well with other professionals to ensure that people's health needs were met. Where appropriate, support and guidance were sought from health care professionals, including GPs and mental health professionals. People were supported with their nutrition and hydration needs. Staff supported people with their medication when required.

Staff knew the people they were supporting and provided a personalised service. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care. Staff were attentive to people's needs and treated people with dignity and respect.

People were supported with activities which interested them. People and their representatives knew how to make a complaint and the service had processes in place to deal with these.

The registered manager had a number of ways of gathering people’s views including talking with people, staff, and relatives. In addition the registered manager also gained people’s views by the use of questionnaires. Quality monitoring audits were completed to help ensure the service was running effectively and to make improvements.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer questions we always ask; is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well-led? As part of this inspection we spoke with five people who used the service, four relatives, three support workers, the manager and two external professionals.

This is a summary of what we found

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they cared for. Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents, incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Staff knew about risk management plans and showed us examples where they had followed them. People were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.

We found that people were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

The provider had safe and effective recruitment and selection procedures in place. No staff had been subject to disciplinary action. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe working practice was identified and people were protected.

Is the service effective?

People’s health and care needs were assessed with their input. Specialist social care, personal care and psychological needs had been identified in care plans where required. People told us that they had been involved in writing their care plans, had given their consent and that they reflected their current needs.

Is the service caring?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. Relatives told us staff were very attentive. One told us, "The staff are very caring, kind and thoughtful." We saw that support workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People we spoke with told us, “The staff are very good here and help us to reach our potential."

People who used the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed a satisfaction survey. People’s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People knew how to raise a concern or how to complain if they were unhappy.

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care in a joined up way.

People completed a range of activities in and outside of the service regularly.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system. Records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. We were therefore assured that the provider had taken steps to continually improve the service.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

We found that people who use the Akaba Social UK Ltd service were provided with information and support in relation to their care. Their views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care. One person we spoke with told us that they made decisions on what they wanted to do and the staff were helpful

We saw people were helped by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

As the service is relatively new the quality assurance systems were immature and information was limited. The provider was positive about developing monitoring systems as the service expands.