The inspection took place on 14 July 2016 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection because it is small and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in. At our last inspection on the 25 July 2013 the provider was compliant with the regulations inspected.

Langstone Community Care is registered to provide personal care services to adults in their own homes or supported living environment. People the service supports have a range of needs including physical disability and learning disability. On the day of the inspection, six people were receiving support. There was a registered manager in post. 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 were safe within the service. We found that care staff knew how to keep people safe and what actions they should take were they concerned about people’s safety. People received their medicines as they were prescribed.

Care staff received appropriate support to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) the provider ensured was being adhered to and staff received the appropriate training to ensure people’s human rights were protected. We saw people’s consent being sought before they were supported.

The provider had support plans in place to meet people’s needs which people were involved in. People were supported by staff who were friendly and kind in how they met their needs. People’s dignity, privacy and independence was respected.

The support people received was responsive to their needs and people were involved in the decisions that related to how they were supported. The provider had a complaints process in place to enable people to raise any concerns they had as part of a complaints process.

We found that where people lacked capacity that an appropriate mental capacity assessment was not taking place. Where the registered manager carried out spot checks or audits there was no documentation to substantiate this. The provider did not carry out quality audits.

We found that the questionnaire used to gather views were aimed specifically at people rather than a general view of the quality of the service being delivered.

The service is currently supporting seven people in the community. We carried out telephone interviews with two relatives in order to obtain feedback about the support provided. We visited six people in their homes and we spoke with four people. We also spoke with four staff and the manager who supported us with the inspection of this agency.

The relatives we spoke with told us they were happy with the support provided by the agency. One relative said, “My relative seems very settled and happy, they go out and undertake activities they really enjoy. The staff seem pleasant and provide good support.”

People that were able to speak to us told us they were happy with the service they received. One person said, “I am happy, the staff are lovely.” Another person said, “Staff help me and they are kind.”

We saw that people’s needs were assessed, and support plans were in place. Staff we spoke with were able to tell us about people’s needs. This ensured they received support in a way they preferred.

We found that staff were clear about the action to take should they become aware of an allegation of abuse. We saw that staff had training to assist them in protecting people from harm.

Staff we spoke with told us they were supported by the manager, and had received some training to help them do their jobs well.

We found that systems were in place for assessing and monitoring the quality of service provided.