This routine comprehensive inspection took place on 22, 23 and 24 February 2017. We gave 48 hours’ notice of the inspection to be sure the service manager and other people we needed to speak with would be available. This was our first inspection of the service at its current address, where it has been registered since 2015. It was previously registered at another address in Poole and when we last inspected that location in January, legal requirements were met.

The service is a domiciliary care service that provides personal care in their own homes to adults who live with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 106 people using the service. The service is required to have a registered manager. The most recent registered manager had left in the autumn of 2016. Their replacement, who had worked at the service for a number of years, was already in post and had applied to register with CQC. 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 had the care and support they needed, which was described in their clear and thorough care plans. People praised the care and support they and their relatives received as exceeding their expectations and boosting their sense of wellbeing. They valued the quality of the service. Health and social care professionals who provided feedback were all very positive about the service and the results it achieved. Some professionals complimented the service on how it worked well with people who had challenging and complex needs. As far as possible people were encouraged to maintain their independence, and their care plans promoted this.

The service manager said the service tended to attract new referrals through word of mouth rather than by advertising. This was confirmed by some of the health and social care professionals we heard from, who told us the service was known as a very good service and that they were glad to direct people towards it.

People’s needs were assessed thoroughly before they started to receive a service, so staff could be sure it would be able to support them in the way they needed. Following this assessment, the service matched people with compatible and suitably skilled staff who worked in their locality. Rosters were organised so people received care from a small team of regular staff who understood their needs and could get to know them.

The service was flexible and responsive to people’s individual needs and preferences, finding creative ways to enable people to maintain social contact and live as full a life as possible. People’s care was not rushed, enabling staff to spend quality time with them. Staff had flexibility to accommodate people’s day-to-day choices and they viewed people holistically rather than focusing purely on tasks that needed completing. Relatives commented on how the service was proactive in contacting them to suggest improvements to people’s care and support, such as letting them know when staff became available to visit at their preferred time.

People and their relatives were treated with kindness, compassion and sensitivity. Their privacy and dignity were respected. People and their relatives valued their relationships with their staff team.

People’s rights were protected because the staff acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care. Staff understood how to find out about and meet people’s preferences, and were innovative in suggesting additional ideas that people themselves might not have considered. Consequently, some people were now getting care they needed but might previously have resisted.

People were given the information and explanations they needed, at the ti