A comprehensive inspection took place on 31 July and 1 August 2018 and was announced. This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered in December 2014. The service had not provided personal care for people up until June 2017.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. The service is a small family business and at the time of this inspection the service was supporting four people. Not everyone using the service received a regulated activity; Care Quality Commission (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.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. The registered manager was not present during the inspection, as they were on holiday, so we liaised with the manager. 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.

Individual risks had mostly been assessed, however, some were unnecessary and not all risks had been identified and steps taken to ensure these were addressed. Despite this people who used the service and relatives told us they felt safe with the staff and the care they were provided with.

Staff completed a range of training, however, there was no record of when individual members of staff required updated training. Supervisions and appraisals were not carried out in line with the provider’s policy information. New employees received an induction which included, an induction book, training and shadowing a more experienced staff member, although, the manager was unable to evidence the induction books had been completed.

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 had mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions in their care plans, however, it was not clearly evidenced what decisions people were able to make.

Care plans we looked at were person centred in some areas but some language used was not always appropriate and some areas required a little more detail to provide guidance for staff. People and relatives were happy with the content of the care plans. Staff made a record of the care they provided and these records were returned to the office monthly. Staff involved people and/or relatives in the care planning process, but this was not always recorded.

There was a complaints procedure in place which enabled people to raise any concerns or complaints about the care or support they received. However, we noted a concern had been raised but had not been documented or action taken recorded.

People, relatives and staff we spoke with were very positive about the manager. They said they had a hands-on approach and was responsive. Feedback regarding the service was gained at regular intervals from people and relatives. Some quality assurance processes were in place such as staff ‘spot checks’, however, there were no audit procedure in place and shortfalls within this report had not been identified. Some provider documentation contained out of date information.

Staffing levels were appropriate to meet people’s care and support needs and recruitment processes were in place and followed, with appropriate checks undertaken prior to staff working at the service to reduce the risk of employing staff who may not be suitable to work with vulnerable people.

The manager told us at the time of the inspection the service did not support people with prescribed medicines or crea