We inspected Home Instead Senior Care on 28 October and 2, 3 and 4 November 2016. We gave the provider 48 hours notice of our intention to inspect the service. This is in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies to make sure the registered manager can be available.

This was the first inspection of the service since the provider registered with the Care Quality Commission in November 2014.

Home Instead Senior Care is a domiciliary care agency which provides care services to people in their own homes. When we visited the office the registered manager told us 12 people were receiving a personal care service. The agency provides a service to adults, older people, people living with dementia, people with physical disabilities, learning disabilities, sensory impairment and people with mental health needs.

The registered manager left the service in July 2016. The nominated individual for the Company has taken over as manager of the service and has submitted an application to register as 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.

Everyone we spoke with was unanimous in their praise of the staff who were described as exceptionally kind, caring and compassionate. People and relatives told us they had regular care staff who always arrived at the agreed time and stayed the full length of the call. They said staff were patient and never rushed allowing people to do things at their own pace. Care staff were introduced to new clients by the manager who shadowed them on their calls until the staff member felt confident to work alone.

Health and social care professionals we spoke with said they thought the service was very good. They described the care as very person-centred and said staff reported any issues promptly and always acted on advice they had given. They said communication between all staff was very good.

Our discussions with staff showed they knew people well. We found recruitment processes were robust and staff told us the induction and shadowing they received was comprehensive and prepared them for their roles. We saw staff received the training and support they required to meet people’s needs.

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and whistleblowing. There had been one safeguarding incident which had been reported and dealt with appropriately.

Medicines management was safe which helped ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

People’s care records provided detailed information about their needs and focussed on what people could do for themselves as well as the support they required from staff. Risk assessments showed any identified risks had been assessed and mitigated. We saw people had been involved in the care planning process and reviews. There was full information about people’s lives which included important relationships, life history and any interests, likes and dislikes. People’s nutritional needs were met.

There was a complaints procedure available which enabled people to raise any concerns or complaints about the care or support they received. We saw complaints received had been dealt with appropriately.

There were policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The manager had completed training and knew the procedures to follow.

People, relatives and staff spoke highly of the manager and the way the service was run. They told us communication was excellent and said the manager was committed to continually improving the service to make it the best it could be for the people who used it. The manager was described as inspirational and provided strong and supportive leadership. Relatives and staff all said they had an