A comprehensive inspection took place on 15 May 2018 and was announced. This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered in May 2017.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. It provides a service to older adults and at the time of this inspection the service were supporting three people.

Not everyone using Goshen'09 Business Centre received 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. We spoke with the registered manager regarding the name of the service and they told us the service was actually called Cardinal Care Services as Goshen'09 Business Centre was the name of the building the service was located.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

Medicines management was not always safely managed; there was no system in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff received training in medicine management but we were unable to evidence an assessment of staffs competency to administer medicines had been completed. When necessary staff involved community nurses, GP's or the emergency services to make sure people's health care needs were met.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe with the staff and the care and support they received. We found there were appropriate systems in place to protect people from risk of harm. Although, the registered manager’s knowledge around safeguarding procedures and reporting incidents to the local authority safeguarding team and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) required strengthening.

People who used the service said their visit times suited their wishes and staff always arrived on time and stayed the agreed length of time. We saw sufficient staff were employed to cover people’s allocated visits. Recruitment procedures were not always robust as not all necessary information had been recorded by the registered manager.

Staff had opportunities for on-going development, although there was no mechanism in place to ‘knowledge check’ staff members to make sure their learning was robust. The registered manager ensured new staff received an induction but said they were behind with staff supervisions.

People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. The registered manager had not completed mental capacity assessment where required.

People and relatives we spoke with told us they were very happy with the service they received and staff were reliable, kind and caring, treated them with dignity and respected their choices. The registered manager told us, currently, the service did not provide care and support for people whose primary need was end of life care. People received assistance with meals and healthcare when required.

The staff we spoke with were able to describe how individual people preferred their care and support delivered. The care plans we looked at contained details of people’s preferred routines, visit times and information about people’s health and support needs, although we noted some areas could be more person centred.

There was a complaints procedure available which enabled people to raise any concerns or complaints about the care or support they received. Although, these were investigated by the registered manager, they were not documented.

People who used the service, relatives and staff we spoke with were very positive about the registered manager. They said the registered