Classic Care Services was inspected on 8 November 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours' notice of the inspection visit because we wanted to make sure key staff would be available to speak with us.

Classic Care Services is a domiciliary care service situated in Crawley, West Sussex. It provides personal care to adults living in their own houses and flats in the community. Some people using the service were living with dementia and physical disabilities. At the time of the inspection there were 47 people using the service. Not everyone using the service receives the regulated activity of personal care; 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 did not have a registered manager. However, the new manager started at the service on the day of the inspection and told us they planned to apply to register with the Care Quality Commission. 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.

At the last inspection on 12 April 2016 the service was rated good. At this inspection on 8 November 2018 the service was rated as requires improvement for the first time.

The provider's approach to quality assurance was inconsistent and systems were not always in place to identify issues in service delivery. Issues we identified at this inspection had not been identified by the provider’s systems. There were audits in place with the aim of ensuring good governance. These were not consistently completed and did not always identify actions taken when issues were identified. Care plans were not always complete or reflective of people’s needs and lacked person centred detail.

Accidents and incidents were not always managed safely. The provider told us that they were not always assured that incidents had been responded to appropriately as they were not managed in a consistent way. People gave mixed feedback about staffing levels which impacted on when they received their care, this resulted in some people experiencing late calls.

People told us they felt safe. A relative told us, “I've never felt that they skimped on the work, I feel he is very safe with them.” People were protected from the risk of harm and staff had a good understanding of safeguarding. Identified risks to people's personal safety were assessed and plans were in place to minimise these risks. People's medicines were managed safely and medicines were administered by trained staff. People were protected from infection control risks.

People's needs and choices were assessed prior to people using the service and regularly thereafter. A member of staff told us, “We always go out and do an assessment prior to people joining the service. It is important to meet people so we get to know them and their needs, it makes the transition more comfortable for people.” People received effective care and support from staff who were well trained and supported within their roles. People were supported at mealtimes to have food and drink of their choice.

People were supported to access healthcare services and staff responded to people's health needs effectively. 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.

People and their relatives all told us staff were kind and compassionate. One person told us, “The girls are absolutely lovely very kind and very caring.” People and their relatives, if appropriate, were involved in discussions about their care. Care plans were r

This inspection took place over two days on 12 and 15 April 2016 and was announced. Classic Care Services is a domiciliary care agency providing care and support to people living in their own homes in the Crawley and Haywards Heath area of West Sussex. At the time of the inspection approximately 58 people were receiving a service. The service was provided to adults and the majority of people using the service were older people, some were living with dementia. The service also supported some younger people with physical disabilities.

The service had a registered manager in post. The 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.

The service had systems in place to keep people safe. Staff had a good understanding of the correct procedures to follow should they suspect abuse and people told us they felt safe living at home with the service from Classic Care Services. People told us there were enough staff to cover the visits and that they had regular care workers one person commented “We usually have the same girls, it’s a small team, they are all lovely,” another person said, “They have never let me down.” Staff told us they worked in geographical areas and covered for each other in the event of absences such as holiday or sickness, one member of staff said “There are plenty of staff, it’s a good team and we can cover for each other.”

Procedures for managing medicines were safe and staff had all received training. People told us they had confidence in staff ability to support them with their medicines, one person said “They know exactly what they are doing with my tablets, I have no concerns.” Risk assessments were robust and staff told us that having comprehensive risk assessments in place helped them to provide care safely and to support people to take positive risks.

Staff were well supported and had access to regular training. Recruitment procedures were robust and one recently recruited member of staff said “I had plenty of time to get to know people and to listen and watch how the other carers did things.” People told us they felt the staff were well trained, comments included “They are all very good at their jobs,” and “They have been well trained and know how to care for me.” Staff were able to demonstrate an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act including the nature and types of consent, people’s right to take risks and the necessity to act in people’s best interests when required. People and their relatives told us that staff sought their consent before providing care and support.

People were supported with food and drink. Nutritional risks and needs were identified and managed with effective monitoring. People and relatives told us that staff were proactive in recognising when people needed to access health care services, one person said “The carer knew straight away that I wasn’t well and asked me if I had called the doctor, they were straight on the phone to them.” People were happy with the care they received and told us the carers were kind and considerate. One person said, “You see such terrible things on the TV about agency’s providing care, there’s nothing like that with this one, they are so caring.” People confirmed that they were involved in making decisions about their care and that staff treated them with respect, one person said, “They are always very respectful of me and the fact that they are in my house.” People said they valued the relationships they had built, one person said, “I can talk to all of them, I like a chat, and the ones I like most, well I can confide in them.” Another person told us, “When I’m down they cheer me up, they’re a happy bunch.”

People’s care plans clearly documented their needs an