We inspected Lifecarers (Cherwell) on 4 August 2016. Lifecarers (Cherwell) are a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care and support to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 45 people received personal care support from the service.

There was a registered manager in post at the service. 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.

At our last inspection on 20 February 2014 we found people’s care was not always planned and delivered to meet their needs safely. At this inspection we found the improvements had been made and people’s care plans were detailed, current and reflected their assessed needs.

People told us they felt safe and they complimented the support received. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding. Staff had received regular training to make sure they stayed up to date with recognising and reporting safety concerns. The service had systems in place to notify the appropriate authorities where concerns were identified. Individual risks to people were assessed and recorded and management plans were in place to manage he risks. People received their medicines as prescribed by appropriately trained staff. People were supported to access health services when required.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to support people and received training allowing them to carry out their roles effectively. Staff told us they were well supported by the management team. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and people received their support as agreed. Records relating to the recruitment of new staff showed relevant checks had been completed before staff worked unsupervised with people.

The staff followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). This protected the rights of people who may not be able to make certain decisions themselves. People benefitted from staff that were aware of and implemented the principles of the act. People told us staff involved them in making decisions about the support they received. Relatives told us they were involved as part of the team to support their family members.

People told us staff were caring and treated them with dignity and respect. Staff had developed positive relationships with people. People received appropriate support that met their needs and the service responded to any changes in people’s needs. When identified as part of their care planning, people were supported to maintain their nutrition. Staff knew how to maintain confidentiality and they promoted people’s independence.

People and their relatives knew how to raise complaints and were confident action would be taken when needed. The management team had arrangements in place to gather information and ensure people were listened to and actions were taken to address these.

The registered manager had a clear vision for the service which was to deliver high quality care to people and care for their staff. They promoted an open and transparent culture. The registered manager informed us of all notifiable incidents. The registered manager monitored the quality of the service and had systems in place to identify improvements and acted on them in a timely way. Staff were encouraged to be involved in regular meetings to share their views and contribute to the running of the service.

We spoke with eight people and two people’s relatives. We reviewed nine peoples care files. We spoke with 11 staff and reviewed six staff files. We also received other documents made available by the manager.

People we spoke with confirmed they were given appropriate information regarding their care and support. They said they knew who to speak to if they were unhappy about their care or if they felt something needed to change. People told us they had received sufficient information about the agency prior to receiving a service.

We reviewed the care files for nine people and saw that each person had an initial assessment in place. These assessments were used to inform care plans. We found that staff were following the care plans, but care plans were not always adequately updated or supported by risk assessments. This was an issue we had asked the provider to note at our last inspection.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. The service had a clear safeguarding procedure which included who to contact if abuse was suspected. Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of safeguarding and knew the procedure.

People we spoke with felt that care workers were well trained. Care workers we spoke with felt supported and told us they had plenty of opportunity to develop their skills. We found that all new staff had a week’s induction and a 12 week probationary period. During this period new care staff shadowed more experienced workers before they began lone working at their own pace.

We found the provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. Regular monitoring across a number of areas such as Health and Safety and staff development was undertaken by management. The findings were recorded to support improvements across the service. The service also had a system in place to monitor and update care files. This system was not operating efficiently on the day of our inspection but we saw a plan was in place to improve this.

People were asked if they consented to care before it was given. People received care that met their needs. Comments about staff included, "They are very good, I couldn’t do without them. I look forward to them coming" and "They are professional...They do a good job." Care plans were thorough and simple to follow, although the impact of risks to people and the way in which the risks could be minimised were not clearly documented.

People were protected from infection because staff had an awareness of infection control measures and carried these out. There were systems in place to ensure that only staff who did not pose a risk to people were recruited. Improvements had been made in the way in which staff were being supported. Complaints were taken seriously and people felt that they were listened to. One person said, "They took my comments on board."

The people we spoke with were happy with the care they received from BYG Oxfordshire. They had been involved in assessing, planning and reviewing their care and said that the staff listened to their wishes. People felt safe when being supported by the staff and said the staff were reliable. They had been asked about their opinions of the service.