Assist Teignbridge is charity which provides care and support to people who live in their own homes.

Not everyone using Assist Teignbridge was receiving a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’. This includes help with tasks related to personal hygiene, eating and in the case of Assist Teignbridge, cutting nails. At the time of this inspection, 254 people were using the nail cutting service. These visits were carried out every six to eight weeks, on average. Six people were receiving support with other personal care.

At our last inspection in July 2016, we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good

People who used the service felt safe. People knew the staff who supported them and arranged their care and support directly with them. There were effective recruitment and selection processes for new staff. This included carrying out checks to make sure new staff were safe to work with the people in the community. Staff carried out a new risk assessment at each visit. They checked whether the person’s medical condition had changed to ensure they were still able to meet the person’s needs.

People received effective care because staff had the skills and knowledge required to support them. In addition to home visits, the service held a nail cutting clinic at the location every other month. Staff monitored people's healthcare needs and advice and support was sought from healthcare professionals when needed. 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.

Staff provided a caring service to people. People spoke very highly of the care and support they received. Comments included "Staff are lovely, we talk laugh and joke” and “I don’t know what I’d do without them.” Staff signposted people to other organisations for external support, if this was beyond the support the agency could provide.

Staff were responsive to people's individual needs. Care needs were assessed and planned with each person to ensure they were able to make choices. People were offered the opportunity to attend events in the local community and benefited from social contact. People knew they could raise any concerns with staff or the registered manager. Each person we spoke with told us they were happy with everything and didn't need to complain.

The service was well led. People and staff told us the management team were open and approachable. The registered manager sought people's views. Comments included “I’m very happy with the way things are” and “5 stars, full marks”. The registered manager and provider had monitoring systems which enabled them to identify good practice and areas of improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Assist Teignbridge is a charity which provides care and support to mostly older people, who live in their own homes. The services provided include a sitting service to enable carers to have a break, a nail trimming service, an enabling service and domestic help. People who use the service live in the Teignbridge area. At the time of the inspection the only personal care being provided was nail trimming. The service was not carrying out personal care such as washing, dressing, or assistance with eating and drinking. However this service was available if people needed it.

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 visited the office on 25 July 2016 and carried out phone calls to people and their relatives on 26 July 2016. At the time of this announced inspection, the service was carrying out 28 visits per week. There was also a monthly clinic which was held at the service’s location at Manor House.

People were really pleased with the way staff treated them. Each person we spoke with told us staff were kind, caring and compassionate. Comments included “They’re very good”; “I’m very happy” and “(Staff name) is a friend now”. People told us staff were respectful and polite.

People told us they felt safe and comfortable when staff were in their home and when they received care. People told us "I feel safe” and “There’s no reason to feel uncomfortable”. Staff knew how to recognise signs of potential abuse and understood how to report any concerns in line with the service's safeguarding policy. Safe staff recruitment procedures were in place. This helped reduce the risk of the provider employing a person who may be a risk to vulnerable people.

People told us staff knew how to meet their needs. Comments included "They do the job beautifully” and “They know what they’re doing”. Staff told us they were happy with the training they received. They said they felt well supported and had regular opportunities to discuss their work. Staff spoke about the people they cared for with compassion and concern. Staff took the time to identify when people may benefit from other services. For example, this had resulted in some people being matched with a befriender.

Assessments were carried out with the person before they used the service. Staff checked people’s medical information at each visit to make sure there had not been any changes. When staff identified any concerns these were referred to healthcare professionals to ensure appropriate treatment was given. People told us staff were on time. They arranged their appointments with the staff member who visited them. If staff were off at short notice, the appointment was rearranged or the registered manager provided the service.

The service sought regular feedback. People told us they were asked for feedback over the phone or during visits and staff observations. An annual questionnaire was sent out and feedback from this was positive. The majority of people said they were very satisfied with the service.

People and their relatives felt able to raise concerns or make a complaint. They were confident their concerns would be taken seriously. People told us they didn't have any complaints. Comments included “I can’t think of anything that could be better” and “No complaints”. The service had a complaints policy but had not received any complaints.

People told us the management were approachable and they were happy with the service. Comments included “I could pick up the phone but don’t ever need to” and “Things are going extremely well”. Staff told us there was open culture. Staff said “The manager is brilliant, amazing” and “job satisfaction is through th

We gave short notice to the service of our visit and found, Teignbridge Carers Break provided a sitting service which included personal care and practical support which enabled individuals to be cared for while their carer had a break and a nail cutting service.

50 people were registered with the sitting service and 169 people received a nail cutting service. We found the service, promoted the independence of both the carer and the cared for, and was flexible, personally tailored to meet the assessed needs of people.

We met with the manager of the service, spoke with three members of staff, three family members and two people who received the nail service. People who received the service told us that they ‘cannot fault the service'. Staff were ‘always on time and the service was flexible'. All of the family members we spoke with were very satisfied with the service received, which they said, enabled them to have a short break to maintain their own interests.

We were told that staff were always on time and were 'always pleasant and not at all pushy'. One person said ‘I trust the staff completely’, ‘I can go out with the knowledge that my husband will be safe and well looked after’.

We examined care files, and found that records were detailed, reviewed and up to date which meant that people can be assured that an appropriate and person centred service was provided.

The service had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.

In people's care plans we saw that people's views and experiences were taken into account regarding their care, treatment and support. People and family representatives told us this was the case. We saw how arrangements for care, treatment and support had been changed as a result.

We found that people's needs were assessed and individual care plans written to meet assessed needs. We saw the provider had a system in place to check that care plans were followed. The provider told us of on call arrangements that were in place to deal with emergencies.

Staff were trained in safeguarding and they were able to tell us what action they would take if abuse was suspected, witnessed or alleged. We found the provider had responded appropriately by raising concerns to the correct people.

We found the provider ensured there were enough staff to meet people's needs and that staff were trained and supervised. Family members told us the staff were "absolutely marvellous" and "I have no complaints at all". We saw written feedback from one person commenting that staff treated people as “a person”.

The provider asked people and their representatives for their views and made changes as a result of comments made where appropriate. Family members and staff told us they were able to make comments on how the service was provided.