This inspection took place on 3 December and 19 December 2018 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours' notice of our visit because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to make sure that there would be someone at the office at the time of our visit. On 20 December 2018 we made telephone calls to people using the service for their views on the service. This was the first inspection since the provider's registration on 9 November 2017. At this inspection, we found the fundamental care standards were not being fully met, resulting in a rating of 'Requires Improvement'.

Amore Social care is a domiciliary care agency. It provides care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. The service caters for children (10-18), older people and younger adults with needs relating to dementia, learning disabilities, physical disabilities, and mental health. Not everyone using Amore Social Care 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 the inspection 14 people were receiving personal care.

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.'

We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 in relation to good governance and safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment.

We found that there had been occasions when the use of restraint was not always proportionate and did not always follow care file restraint protocol. At times, from records we saw, it appeared restraint was used before any efforts were made to diffuse the situation. There was also no oversight from the registered manager regarding the use of restraint. The manager agreed to address this issue immediately.

We found that the registered manager was not fully up to date with her knowledge regarding the Mental Capacity Act. On the first day of the inspection, relevant legal paperwork was not available to view, although we did get to see this before the end of the inspection. The registered manager was not aware that the service would need to complete mental capacity assessments as required. The registered manager and staff had not completed Mental Capacity Act training at the time of the inspection, but this has since been arranged.

We found that audits were in place, but these were not always effective at identifying issues and learning opportunities. Audits also lacked any clear action plan with how issues were going to managed, and there was no follow up to monitor if these issues had been resolved.

People told us that staff treated them in a caring way and respected their privacy and supported them to maintain their dignity. The delivery of care was tailored to meet people's individual needs and preferences.

People told us they felt safe with the care provided by staff. Staff we spoke with understood their responsibility in protecting people from the risk of harm. Staff told us they had received training that had helped them to understand and support people.

Policies set out that when a safeguarding incident occurred management needed to take appropriate action by referring to the relevant safeguarding agency. However, an incident had not been reported to us at the time the service had been aware of them, as legally required.

Staff Recruitment procedures were in place to protect people receiving personal care from unsuitable staff.

The registered manager and the management team had created an open and supportive cultur