This inspection took place on 15 and 16 December 2016. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice that we would visiting their office as we wanted to make sure that the registered manager would be available on the days of our inspection. The service was last inspected on 04 August 2014 and was meeting all the regulations that we looked at.

Jays Homecare Ltd provides domiciliary care services to 85 people living in their own home. The service works with people living with dementia, learning disabilities, older people and people with sensory, physical and mental impairments.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us that where staff supported them with their medicines, this was carried out appropriately. We looked at seven Medicine Administration Records (MAR) and found that there were no gaps in recording. MAR charts are the formal record of administration of medicine within the care setting. However, where medicines were administered from a blister pack or dossette box, the individual name of the medicine, dose and frequency prescribed was not detailed on the MAR chart.

Individualised care plans were available and written from the point of view of the people that were being supported. Care plans were detailed and provided information to enable staff to support people appropriately. We saw that care plans were regularly reviewed and updated as changes occurred.

Risk assessments were personalised and identified risks associated with people’s care and support needs. Where risks were identified, there was detailed guidance available for staff to ensure that identified risks were managed or mitigated so that people were kept safe from harm.

People told us that they felt safe with the staff that supported them. Staff were able to explain how they would recognise and report abuse and clearly understood their responsibilities in keeping people safe.

The service followed robust recruitment procedures to make sure that only suitable staff were employed.

Complaints were appropriately investigated and details of the actions taken were clearly noted with a response sent to the complainant acknowledging their concerns and the actions taken to make improvements where necessary. However, we noted that the complaints received all detailed a common theme in relation to lateness of staff, missed visits and poor communication.

People and relatives told us that they received a team of regular care workers to support them. The service tried to ensure that the same care staff were allocated to a person’s care package. Although people confirmed that this generally happened, where a change was required due to regular care staff being on annual leave or on sick leave, changes were not communicated effectively by the office staff.

Staff confirmed that they received regular training and supervision in order to support people effectively.

Staff understood that it was not right to make decisions and choices for people when they could make decisions and choices for themselves. People’s ability around decision making, preferences and choices were recorded in their care plan and followed by staff.

People and relatives confirmed that they were involved as much as they wanted to be in the planning of their care and support. Support plans included the views of people using the service and their relatives.

A number of quality assurance systems were in place which included spot checks, quality assurance reviews and quality surveys and questionnaires. Where areas for improvement were identified, the information was used as an opportunity to improve the care and support people received.