This inspection took place on 5 and 9 January 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service; we needed to be sure that someone would be available in the office.

Mencap West Hampshire Domiciliary Care Agency provides personal care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the agency was providing a service for 36 people with a variety of care needs, including people living with a learning disability or who have autism spectrum disorder. The agency was managed from a centrally located office base in Fareham.

The service 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 full service and was supported by seven service managers who were allocated a geographical area to manage. Service managers were responsible for individual parts of the service, for example support to people in a supported living unit or support to people living in their own home.

People and their families told us they felt safe and secure when receiving care. Relevant recruitment checks were conducted before staff started working at Mencap West Hampshire Domiciliary Care Agency to make sure they were of good character and had the necessary skills.

Staff received training in safeguarding adults. They completed a wide range of training and felt it supported them in their job role. New staff completed an induction designed to ensure staff understood their new role before being permitted to work unsupervised. Staff told us they felt supported and received regular supervision and support to discuss areas of development. Staff meetings were held every month. There were sufficient numbers of staff to maintain the schedule of care visits to meet people’s needs.

The risks to people were minimized through risk assessments and staff were aware of how to keep people safe and the information provided staff with clear guidelines to follow. There were plans in place for foreseeable emergencies.

People who used the service felt they were treated with kindness and said their privacy and dignity was respected. People received their medicines safely. Staff had an understanding of legislation designed to protect people’s rights and were clear that people had the right to make their own choices.

Staff knew what was important to people and encouraged them to be as independent as possible. People were supported to lead full and varied lives and encouraged to make choices and had access to a wide range of activities.

Staff were responsive to people’s needs which were detailed in people’s care plans. Care plans provided comprehensive information which helped ensure people received personalised care. People felt listened to and a complaints procedure was in place.

Staff felt supported by the registered manager and could visit the office to discuss any concerns. There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided. Accidents and incidents were monitored, analysed and remedial actions identified to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.

We spoke with three people who used the service, two relatives and three members of staff.

We found that the service was very responsive to people's needs and that people were happy with the care they received. One person told us they were "happy with it all" and another said they "feel safe living here".

One relative told us they "give as much freedom as they think it's safe to have" and wanted to give special credit to the service manager for what they've done.

We found that staff were well supported with a thorough induction, ongoing training and support from service managers. One new member of staff said they were very impressed with the service as a whole.

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 someone 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.

We spoke by telephone, to six people who use the service and one relative who was involved closely with the person and their care.

People told us they were happy with the service they received. They said they had individual care plans that they were involved in creating. They said they had regular meetings to review these care plans and felt they were consulted about their care and support on a daily basis. They said they usually have the same staff and when asked what staff were like they said they were “kind and patient”, “they listen to you and he has sorted things out for me”, “brilliant, very good, all of them are” and “they understand me and give me the support I need”.

We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, including specific information we asked for as part of the review. We carried out a visit to the office on 09 May 2011, the agency carried out a survey for the compliance review and we have used the results from the 12 people who responded and talked to relatives by telephone. We also spoke with three staff over the telephone.