This was an unannounced inspection that was carried out on 5 October 2016 by an adult social care inspector.

Living for life is a domiciliary care agency that cares for people living with a learning disability or for older adults. The office base is Workington and the team deliver care to people in the Allerdale area. At the time of the inspection the provider was supporting ten people in their own homes.

The service had a suitably qualified and experienced registered 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.

The service ensures that the people they care for are as safe as possible. Staff were trained to recognise abuse and suitable systems were in place to ensure that people were protected from harm.

The service had suitably recruited, trained and supervised staff who were deployed appropriately to meet people's needs. Appraisals were up to date and detailed. The service had suitable policies and procedures related to disciplinary and grievance matters.

Staff were trained in the administration and management of medicines and these were recorded appropriately.

Infection control matters were managed appropriately with staff receiving training. Personal protective clothing, gloves and other equipment was available for staff.

The registered manager and the assistant manager had a good understanding of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act. They had also ensured that the staff team had an understanding of the legislation. People told us that they were asked for consent before interactions.

Staff had received training on nutrition and care plans included any issues related to food preparation and healthy eating. Staff encouraged people with weight problems to join slimming groups.

We saw that staff supported people to access health care support and were trained to call on the support of health care professionals for emergencies or where a person required additional support.

The service was based in a suitable office base and the suite of offices were secure yet easily accessible.

People told us that staff were caring and kind. Staff were trained in person centred care and in all aspects of privacy and dignity. People could have the support of an advocate.

Good assessment of need and ability was in place. Care planning encouraged independence and skills building.

People were encouraged to engage in all sorts of community activities and some of the work the agency did was specifically to prevent people from becoming socially isolated.

There had been no formal complaints about the service and we had evidence to show that minor concerns were dealt with straight away.

We met the registered manager and also saw from notes that the provider was involved in the service. We judged that the management team were open and promoted a culture that valued and respected people who used the service.

The service had a suitable quality monitoring system in place. We had evidence to show that changes and improvements were made if there were any quality matters which did not meet the expectations of the provider.

We spoke with people using the service and they told us they had been involved in planning their care and were asked for consent during their initial assessments. We saw in the records we reviewed that people had consented to their care and treatment and these had been signed by the relevant parties.

People using the service made many positive comments about the service. We were also told there was a consistency of care staff providing the care and people told us that was important to them.

Staff we spoke with were able to tell us what they should do if they suspected abuse had occurred or was at risk of happening. Staff also confirmed that they had received training on this and understood about whistle blowing on poor practices.

The recruitment procedures in place demonstrated to us that the provider operated a robust and effective recruitment procedure to protect the interests of people using the service.

There was a variety of audits completed on a regular basis. We also saw records of unannounced visits made by senior staff to observe and monitor the delivery of care and treatment by staff in people’s homes.

People we spoke with told us they had no complaints about the service but would be happy to raise their concerns directly with the staff or manager. One person told us, "I would just tell the manager if something was wrong".

We had minimal contact with service users but we had relatives and advocates comment on their behalf.

"So far we are happy with the staff..they notice the small things that need to be done...and it is good that usually he has the same person most of the time...".

"I am happy with the agency...they are spot on and they are doing well with him...they phone me to ask about things and to tell me how things are progressing".