This inspection took place on 16 and 21 December 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ because the location provides a domiciliary care service; we needed to be sure that someone would be available in the office.

Kimberley Care provides personal care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of this inspection, they were providing a service to 40 people with a variety of care needs, including people living with physical frailty or memory loss. The service is managed from an office based in Eastleigh.

There was 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, relatives, staff and professionals told us the provider had a clear, supportive management structure in place. The registered manager and managing director were actively involved in the day-to-day running of the service and knew people well, stepping in to help deliver care if needed and monitoring and reviewing people’s care as their needs changed.

Staff were suitably trained and supported in their work and knew how to meet people’s needs. Training included opportunities for staff to experience and practice care tasks. Many staff were completing additional qualifications in health and social care to extend their skills and knowledge in their role. Staff followed legislation designed to protect people’s rights and freedom and were confident in identifying and report concerns about people.

People told us that staff were caring and compassionate. Many staff had worked with people over a long period and had formed close working relationships with them. People told us that there were sufficient numbers of staff available who provided consistent care at agreed times.

People were involved in the planning and reviewing of their care needs. The registered manager had an open door policy where feedback was valued and people felt listened too. People told us that they were confident in making a complaint and that issues raised had been resolved quickly and appropriately.

Risks relating to people were managed safely. The service sought to put measures in place to reduce the risk to people and staff, whilst respecting people’s choice and independence in their own homes. Risks related to emergencies such as severe weather were managed pro-actively. The services contingency planning helped ensure minimal disruption to the care that people received in these circumstances and staff showed dedication and commitment to ensure that people’s needs were met.

Peoples were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing. They received appropriate support around their nutrition, hydration and medicines. People were supported to health appointments when required.

Incidents were analysed to identify trends and triggers. This led to people’s needs being reviewed, additional support being provided to staff and improvements being made. Quality Assurance systems were used to assess the quality of the service being provided and to identify areas for improvement.

We spoke to care workers who confirmed that they always asked for consent prior to care being given. They told us that they would gain consent in other ways if the person was unable to confirm their wishes verbally. For example, one care worker told us: “I am lucky that I support the same people most days so I know them really well. One person I care for is unable to communicate verbally so I use picture prompt cards. A smile is usually an indication that the person is happy to receive care”.

People told us that they were happy with the service provided by the agency. People we spoke with said the service met their care needs. One person told us: “I’ve always been satisfied with them and the care they provide” Another said: “They take into account my wishes”.

Appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to the recording of medicine. We looked at samples of the medicine administration records (MAR), which kept a record of medicines that staff had supported people to take. The MAR had been completed in line with the procedures. Care plans contained information about the levels of support individuals received in relation to taking prescribed medicines.

Appropriate checks were undertaken before care workers began work. We looked at four care worker files and saw that the necessary checks had been made before people started to provide care in people's homes. We saw that Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks had been completed. There was a minimum of two references for each employee, together with proof of identity. The registered manager confirmed the references by direct contact (telephone call) with the referee.

People who used the service, their representatives and care workers were asked for their views about their care, treatment and the service. The registered manager told us they sent questionnaires annually to people who used the service. We looked at the results from the last questionnaire which was conducted in April 2013 and found that the responses were very positive about the service.

We telephoned and spoke with four people who use the service and we spoke with four members of staff and the registered manager. People said that the agency had carried out an assessment of their needs to ensure that they could meet them before a service was provided. They told us that the agency had involved them or their relatives in the process. People using the service told us they were happy with the service provided. One person who used the service said "it was absolutely excellent nothing is too much trouble for my carer". They confirmed that they had been involved in the assessment and care planning process which meant care staff supported them in a way they preferred.

The service responded to people's changing needs and wishes. We were told the service was "extremely responsive and will change care times and packages to meet individual needs and requests”. People told us the agency arranged staffing so that they received care and support from a small team of care staff. They were always informed in advance which of these care staff were attending to them the following week. Staff were generally punctual with visits and notified them if there as any delay to their visits. They said that staff were competent and knew what they were doing. One person we spoke with said “staff were helpful and friendly and respected their privacy,

People said that the agency checked that they were satisfied with the service they received by regular phone calls or visits.