The inspection took place on 15 and 16 November 2017 and was announced. This meant we gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of our intended visit to ensure someone would be available in the office to meet us.

The service was last inspected by CQC on 12 and 13 August 2015, at which time it was rated good. At this inspection the service remained good.

BVDF is a domiciliary care provider and is registered to provide personal care to people who live in their own homes. The service provides care for people living in Blyth and the surrounding area. There were 250 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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 who used the service told us they felt safe, whilst relatives and external professionals raised no concerns about people’s safety.

Staff had received appropriate medicines and safeguarding training and demonstrated their knowledge during the inspection.

A lone worker policy was in place and staff felt supported and safe. An out-of-hours phone number was in place for staff.

Environmental and person-specific risks were initially assessed and reviewed regularly.

There were sufficient numbers of staff were on duty to meet the needs of people who used the service. Care visits were planned by a team of co-ordinators and missed calls were extremely rare. Rota planning did not always factor in travel time, meaning there were on occasion small delays experienced by people. We have made a recommendation about rota planning.

Pre-employment checks such as with the Disclosure and Barring Service were in place to ensure staff were suitable to work with potentially vulnerable people.

Training included safeguarding, moving and handling, infection control, health and safety, first aid and dementia awareness. The induction was sufficiently detailed and gave staff a grounding in the provider’s policies as well as best practice.

Staff liaised well with external healthcare professionals to support people when their needs or preferences changed.

People who used the service confirmed their consent was sought at all stages of care and that they were involved in the care planning process. Care plans were regularly reviewed and people and their relatives confirmed they were involved. Care documentation however did not always clearly record whether people had consented to the care plan which was in place.

People who used the service, relatives and healthcare professionals told us staff were caring, compassionate and treated people with dignity, respect and sensitivity.

People who used the service and staff confirmed they received generally good levels of continuity and that they were given a rota each week so they knew who would be visiting them.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and displayed a good understanding of presuming capacity and communicating well with people to ensure they were able to make their preferences and interests known.

Staff were well supported through regular supervisions, appraisals and ad hoc support by care co-ordinators and the managers of the service.

People who used the service and healthcare professionals told us staff were accommodating to people’s changing needs and preferences, for instance late changes to visit times.

People who used the service knew how to complain should the need arise and we saw this information was provided to all people who began using the service. Where a complaint had been made it had been responded to comprehensively.

The registered manager, deputy manager and care co-ordinators were described in positive terms by people who used the service and c

We sent out 61 questionnaires to people. Each person was also sent an additional questionnaire to give to a relative, friend or advocate for completing. A total of 27 questionnaires were returned. 19 were received from people who used the service and 8 were received from relatives. In addition, our expert by experience spoke with 23 people by phone and we visited two people at home to find out their opinions of the service.

We also spoke with a number of health and social care professionals to find out their opinions of the service. These included a team leader from Northumbria Healthcare’s care management service, a district nurse, a support planner from Northumbria Healthcare and a ward manager from a local hospital. All were very complimentary about the service.

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

We visited the service to follow up on concerns about record keeping identified at the last inspection visit on 6 September 2012.

We did not speak to any people who used the service at this visit.

We were satisfied people were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because appropriate records were maintained.

W spoke with four people who received a regular service from Blyth Valley Disabled Forum. They told us staff were reliable, and generally prompt in coming to their homes. They said occasionally they were delayed, but usually they let them know about any delay. One person said they were very satisfied with the care and support provided by the care workers. They said "now I have been with the Forum for about six months I can honestly say the service they provide far exceeds what I had expected." Another person said " the carers are very nice and cheerful. I am very satisfied with the service I receive."

We saw some records contained insufficient information about the support provided to individuals. The lack of detail in records can mean people are at risk of receiving inappropriate care. We spoke to the manager about this and they agreed to address this. People were treated with respect and were involved in making choices about their care and treatment. They were supported to maintain their independence.

Staff were well supported by the provider and had appropriate opportunities to access training relevant to their roles. People were given information about the provider's complaints procedures and felt their comments and complaints were listened to and acted on.

Blyth Valley Disabled Forum is a domiciliary care service, providing care to people in their own homes. At the time of the inspection the service provided care to around 270 people.

We carried out this announced inspection on 12 and 13 August 2015. At the last inspection of this service, in November 2013, we found the provider was meeting all of the regulations we inspected.

A registered manager was in place. 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 they felt safe with staff from the service. Staff had undertaken training in how to recognise and respond to any potential abuse. Procedures were in place to protect people from financial abuse.

There were enough staff to carry out the visits to people’s homes. People told us staff were reliable and punctual. A recruitment and selection policy was in place, but this had not always been followed, as some staff files we reviewed contained only one reference.

Processes were in place to manage medicines appropriately and we observed staff wearing personal protective equipment to minimise the spread of infection.

People told us staff were sufficiently skilled to care for them and meet their needs. Staff training was monitored and kept up to date. Staff were given opportunities to further develop their skills and knowledge. Staff met with their manager regularly in supervisions sessions and their conduct was monitored through observations.

Whilst the manager told us that all of the people supported by the service had the capacity to make their own decisions, she was aware of the process which should be followed if this was not the case.

People told us staff were friendly and considerate. They told us staff went out of their way to provide them with a quality service. People were given information about what to expect from the service and were provided with details on a weekly basis as to which staff would attend their visits.

Care records were specific and included people’s preferences and choices.

People’s needs had been assessed to determine the support they needed. Their needs were monitored to ensure they received the right care. People told us the service was responsive to any changes in the service that they requested, such as changing the times of their visits.

People told us their care was usually carried out by a small team of care workers who knew them well. They told us when their usual staff were unavailable, staff who carried out their personal care were aware of the support they required.

Complaints had been recorded, investigated and responded to. People were encouraged to share their feedback through a yearly survey.

People told us the office was well managed and efficient. In addition to the registered manager there were a team of staff in place to ensure smooth operating of the service. People and staff told us they were always able to contact the office whenever they needed to.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service which was provided. Audits and checks were carried out on care records. Observations and monitoring visits were regularly held in people’s own home to ensure staff practice was appropriate and that people were happy with the service they received.

Staff and people who used the service were represented on a forum in place to discuss future developments of the service and to suggest improvements.