This inspection took place on the 16 and 17 January 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location is a domiciliary care service and so we needed to be sure key staff would be available at the office.

Amberley Care is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care, sitting or respite care and domestic services to people in their own homes, some of whom will be living with dementia. The service operates in the Hedge End, West End, Botley and Eastleigh areas. There were 58 people receiving a personal care service at the time of our inspection. A small number of people had their care and support commissioned, on their behalf, by the local authority. The remaining people had arranged their care direct with Amberley Care and were referred to by the service as private clients. Most people did not have complex needs and the service did not currently take on care packages that required two care workers to manage the person’s needs.

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.

People told us, without exception, they were supported by staff who were kind and caring. Staff displayed a genuine desire to enhance people's wellbeing and to developing positive relationships with the people they cared for. Care staff understood the importance of promoting people's independence and supporting them to retain as much control as possible. People were treated with respect and the support they received helped to maintain their dignity.

People spoke positively about how well organised the service was and about the quality of care they received. Without exception, they told us they would recommend the service to others. The registered manager had fostered an open and transparent culture within the service. They were passionate about the service and had a clear vision for its future. They acted as a good role model for the staff team and championed the importance of person centred care.

People felt safe when being supported by the care workers. Risk assessments were undertaken to assess any risks to people who received a service and to the care workers who supported them.

Medicines were managed safely. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and had a good understanding of the signs of abuse and neglect and of how to report any concerns they might have about people.

There were sufficient numbers of care workers available to meet people’s needs. People told us their care workers arrived on time and stayed for the correct length of time. People were very pleased with the consistency of care they received and told us they were usually supported by a small team of carers who were familiar with their needs.

Staff undertook a range of training and had regular supervision and an annual appraisal. This helped to ensure staff performed their role effectively and understood their responsibilities.

Where necessary people were supported appropriately with their nutritional needs. There was evidence staff liaised with health and social care professionals involved in people’s care if their health or support needs changed.

Staff were provided with the information they needed to meet people’s needs in a person centred manner. This helped staff to develop their relationship with the person and provide responsive care.

The service had a complaints policy and information about how to raise concerns or complaints about the quality of care provided was readily available to people using the service.

There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service and drive improvements.

Following our inspection at the agency office we telephoned and spoke with 15 people who were using the service and four relatives. We also spoke with five members of staff and the manager. All the people we spoke with were very complimentary about the care and support they were receiving and raised no concerns about the service. We received comments such as “nothing is too much trouble”, “carers are very good”, “I have no complaints whatsoever” and “they are all very nice people”. People told us usually the same care staff visited them and this gave them continuity in the care they received.

Arrangements were in place to ensure care was delivered that met people's needs. These had been assessed before care was provided and plans had been put in place to meet them. We found that care plans were updated as people’s needs changed. Assessments including risk assessments were completed before the service was delivered.

There was an annual process to seek the views of people which was to be completed in December 2013. Feedback was also obtained through telephone calls, spot checks on staff and individual reviews. The feedback was assessed to check if changes were needed. Systems were also in place for staff to feedback their views and these were acted on. An effective quality assurance system was in place. Arrangements were in place to train staff in safeguarding. We also found there was an effective recruitment process in place and a system to induct staff into their roles.