This inspection commenced on 29 June 2018 and was announced. This was the first inspection for the service since it was registered in June 2016.

Caemac Investments Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults, younger disabled adults and bespoke packages to people returning to their own home following discharge from hospital.

Not everyone using Caemac Investments Limited 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.

The service has a registered manager who is also the provider. 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.

Staff were not recruited safely. The necessary pre-employment recruitment checks been completed but the provider had failed to evidence their decision to appoint members of staff with convictions recorded on their Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks or robustly assess the potential risk these staff members may present to people who used the service.

Risks to people’s health, safety and well-being had been identified and assessed but it was not clear if the assessments completed were up to date or reflective of people’s current needs.

There were sufficient staff deployed to cover the scheduled care calls; however, the call monitoring service was not consistently used or checked to ensure that care was being provided as planned. The provider did not complete an audit of the call monitoring service.

People told us they thought that staff were well trained and staff confirmed they received regular training which supported them in their roles. However, training records were inconsistent and there were no clear systems for recording the training completed or required for the staff team. Staff did not receive formal, recorded supervision.

Assessments were completed prior to the service providing care and support to people and people felt involved in deciding the care they were to receive. Care plans provided detail as to the care and support needs of people but it was not clear if they had been reviewed and were reflective of people’s current needs.

Quality monitoring systems had not been established at the service. Due to the lack of monitoring in all areas the provider did not have an overview of quality or safety. The provider was open and transparent and was aware of some of the shortfalls identified during the inspection but had not recorded the issues they had identified, nor had they completed any action plan to evidence how they planned on addressing the issues. The provider had also not use any system or process to gather people’s views on the service to ensure that their feedback was included in any service planning or development.

People told us they felt safe receiving care and support. Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures and had received training. Staff confirmed the action they would take if they identified any safeguarding concerns including reporting to local authorities or the CQC.

Medicines were managed safely. People's medicines administration records had the detail required to record what medicines had been administered.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the systems in the service supported this practice. The service worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People's needs in relation to eating and drinking were recorded with guidance for staf