This inspection took place on 5 January 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours because the location provides a domiciliary care service; we need to be sure that someone would be available in the office.

Mencap North Hampshire provides personal care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of this inspection the agency was providing a personal care service to 25 people with a learning disability and a variety of care needs. The agency was providing a service to people across the north of Hampshire the majority of whom were living in houses providing 24 hour care and support for several people.

The agency had a 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

registered manager oversaw the running of the service and was supported by service managers who were allocated a geographical area to manage. At the time of this inspection a temporary manager was managing the service whilst the registered manager had some planned extended leave from work.

Staff understood how to protect people from abuse and were responsive to their needs. People were protected against the risk of abuse, checks were made to confirm staff were of good character to work with people. There were sufficient staff to meet people's diverse needs and people were supported to take their medicine as prescribed.

Risk assessments and support plans had been developed with the involvement of people and their representatives. Staff had the relevant information on how to minimise identified risks to ensure people were supported in a safe way. Staff understood people’s needs and abilities and knew people well.

Staff were provided with a comprehensive induction and ongoing training to support the people they worked with.

The provider understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff knew about people’s individual capacity to make decisions and supported people to make their own decisions. People’s needs and preferences were met when they were supported with their dietary needs and people were supported to maintain good health.

The delivery of care was tailored to meet people’s individual needs and preferences. The provider actively sought and included people and their representatives in the planning of care. There were processes in place for people to express their views and opinions about the service provided.

People, relatives and staff spoke highly of the management. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service to enable the manager and provider to drive improvement.

On the day of our visit the agency was providing personal care to nine people in the community. Care was overseen by regional managers who visited people regularly in their supported living homes to check that care was being delivered effectively.

We found that, despite a high turnover of staff, people were happy with their care. We spoke with three people, one of whom told us "I get lots of choices". Another person told us they "feel safe".

We spoke with two members of staff, both of whom told us they felt well supported.

Our inspection involved a visit to the registered office where we sampled paper records, electronic records and spoke to the area operations manager and one of the local managers. We also spoke to two staff over the telephone and our Expert by Experience spoke to two relatives of people currently using the service, also over the telephone.

We found that the service had improved in the areas that we asked for at our last inspection. For example, the care records were more detailed and personal to the individual and kept under regular review. Staff confirmed that there had been improvements and told us they thought people received good quality of care from a team that worked together to achieve this.

One of the relatives we spoke to was happy with the service and one was not. The relative who was not satisfied is currently in the process of changing provider.

We made efforts to speak with people using the service however we were only able to speak with one. The provider initially gave us names and contact details of people who we subsequently found out were receiving a service from another agency also run by the provider. We then arranged to meet a group of people but were given the wrong time so the meeting did not take place. We then asked two managers to arrange for us to talk to people over the telephone, however they did not provide us with any contact details.

The one person I spoke to said staff were “really good and kind”. They also told us that staff were understanding, they said “they know when I’m unhappy” and “they sort things out”. They confirmed that they were happy with the support they received and would know who to talk to if not.

People told us they were very satisfied with the care they received. They said they were involved in decisions about their care and support. People said they mostly had the same staff visiting them.

People told us that staff were kind, caring and respectful and would often go “over and above the call of duty” to assist them.

People told us that in general it was easy to contact the office and any issues were easily resolved.

Staff said they liked their work and felt they were well trained and supported in their roles.