This was an announced inspection which took place on 17 and 18 August 2018. We gave the provider 24 hours' notice to ensure someone would be available at the office.

EcoClean Community Care is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to older people living in their own houses and flats.

At the time of inspection 17 people were using the service.

At the last inspection in August 2017 the service was not meeting all of the legal requirements with regard to regulation 17, good governance.

Following that inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions needed for governance to at least good.

At this inspection we found some improvements had been made with regard to the breach of regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. However, the service was still in breach of this regulation 17 as other improvements with regard to governance were required. Breaches of regulation 9, person-centred care and regulation 18 staffing were also made at this inspection.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

This is the first time the service has been rated Requires Improvement.

The provider was also registered as the manager of the service. 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.

Improvements had been made and the provider undertook some audits to check on the quality of care provided. However, more frequent audits were required.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe using the service and they trusted the workers who supported them. However, some aspects of service delivery required strengthening to ensure people were kept safe.

People mostly received their medicines in a safe way. However, we identified more frequent audits of medicines management was required to ensure all people received their prescribed medicines.

Improvements were required to staffing capacity to ensure sufficient staff were employed to provide safe, consistent and flexible care to people. Improvements were required to the provider’s recruitment process to minimise the risk of unsuitable staff being employed.

There was communication between people, relatives and the service to try to ensure relevant people were kept up-to-date about people's care and support needs. However, improvements were required to ensure people’s care was co-ordinated effectively by the agency.

Initial assessments of people’s needs took place when people started to use the agency but a system of review was required to ensure they continued to identify any current risk to people. Care plans were in place for some needs but they did not provide guidance for how people were to be supported to ensure consistency of care. Care plans did not show evidence of regular review or review as people’s needs changed.

People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support them in the least restrictive way possible, the policies and systems in the service were not available to support this practice. Staff had some understanding of best interest decision making, when people were unable to make decisions themselves. People were not kept involved in decisions about their care. Staff had not all received training about the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People did not have the opportunity to give their views about the service. There was consultation with staff, family members and friends and their views were used to improve the service.

People did not receive an accessible information pack when they started to use the service that gave them informa

This inspection took place on 26 and 29 June 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides domiciliary care services and we needed to be sure that someone would be available to assist us with the inspection. We contacted people who used the service and staff by telephone on 27 and 30 June 2017 to ask for their views.

EcoClean Community Care is a domiciliary care service that provides personal care to people in their own homes within the Leeds area. EcoClean Community Care was registered with the Care Quality Commission in June 2016 and this was the first inspection of the service. The service provides care for older people and people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were four people using this service.

The service has 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 told us that they liked the culture of the service as they were listened to and were supported by the registered manager. However, we found there were no processes in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. The registered manager was not aware of the issues we found during this inspection in relation to supervisions and appraisals for staff to develop their skills and knowledge. No audits or surveys had been completed which meant that the registered manager could not identify areas for improvement and whether people were satisfied with the care provided.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe. Staff received training in how to protect people from abuse and how to respond if they suspected abuse was taking place. Safeguarding concerns had been appropriately managed.

Procedures were in place to guide staff on the safe administration of medicines and staff had received medicines training. Medicines were managed safely, although we found two errors which had not been identified or reported to management. We have made a recommendation about this.

Risk assessments had been developed and were in place for people who needed them. They had been regularly reviewed and updated when required to ensure they contained the most up to date information. Risks regarding people’s home environment had been identified and appropriate risk assessments were in place.

Staffing numbers were sufficient to meet people's needs. The most recently recruited staff files demonstrated that the provider’s policy regarding recruitment had been followed. Previous records were missing documentation such as references.

People using the service were mostly independent with their dietary needs. Staff encouraged and promoted healthy options and fluid intake during visits.

Care records contained evidence of close working relationships with other professionals to maintain and promote people’s health. People were clear about how they could get access to their own GP and other professionals and staff at the service arranged this for them when required.

Staff received the support and training they needed to give them the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs. They were provided with an induction programme at the start of their employment. Staff understood how to support people in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and were aware of the procedures to follow if they suspected a person lacked capacity to make decisions.

Staff supervisions and appraisals were informal and not documented in line with the provider’s policy. The registered manager was informed of this on the first day of inspection and had started completing appraisals at the second day of inspection.

Staff were caring, had positive relationships with people using the service and communicated w