This inspection commenced on 18 September 2018, and it was announced. We gave the provider 24 hours’ notice of our intended inspection to ensure relevant staff would be available to assist us with the inspection process.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. MKF provides care and support to people living in their own homes in the community. At the time of our inspection they were providing a service to 23 people with the regulated activity of personal care.

The service had a registered manager in post who was present on the day of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 the last inspection we found the service was not consistently well led. There were insufficient quality assurance systems in place to monitor the service effectively.

People told us that they felt safe. There were safeguarding procedures in place to help protect people from harm and staff had received effective training in safeguarding people. Staff understood their responsibilities and were able to describe the process they would follow if they had any concerns about people’s safety.

Potential risks to the health and well-being of people had been assessed and where risks were identified, appropriate actions had been taken to help mitigate and reduce risk. These were kept under review to ensure they were current and effective.

No accident or incidents had been recorded and the registered manager confirmed that they had not had any, but if any incidents did occur they would record them and complete relevant notifications.

People were supported by a small and consistent team of care staff and there were sufficient staff deployed to provide the care and support people required. The service had a recruitment procedure in place to ensure the safe recruitment of all staff. This was undergoing some developmental work at the time of our inspection to ensure a more consistent approach.

People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed by staff who had received training and had their competency checked. People were supported to maintain their health and well-being and accessed the services of health professionals. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them to remain as independent as possible. People were asked to sign their care plan to give their consent and agreement.

People had been involved in the development and planning of their care and deciding how and when their care was provided. Each person had a detailed care plan which reflected their needs, and was reviewed periodically.

Staff were supported and had the skills and knowledge to care for people effectively. They had received training and supervision, which was being further developed to ensure consistency. Spot checks were completed and used effectively to help with personal development.

People were provided with a service by staff who were kind and caring. Staff were respectful of people’s dignity and privacy. Staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported and had developed positive and respectful relationships.

People knew how to raise concerns or complaints, although no ‘formal’ concerns had been recorded. Feedback on the service was encouraged and was shared with staff for learning and development which helped address and resolve any potential concerns before they became a complaint.

We noted that improvements had been made since the last inspection. The registered manager had put systems and processes in place to help monitor the overall quality and safety of the service. However, they had not yet completed a survey or questionnaire to obtain peoples feedback to enable them to evaluate what the service does well and where

The office inspection took place on 10, August 2017. On the 15 we contacted staff to get feedback and on the18 August 2017 we contacted people, and relatives to obtain feedback about the service they received. This was the first inspection since the service was registered on 07/01/2016. MKF Homecare is a domiciliary care service that provides care and support to people in their own homes.

At the time of our inspection, MKF Homecare were providing support to 9 people. There were four staff working at the service and this included the registered manager, a director who was a family member and an office administrator who was also a family member.

There was a manager in post who had registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Potential risks to people’s health and well-being were identified by staff. However staff were not always aware of how to manage the risks effectively to help keep people safe. The registered manager had arranged further training to address this. Risk assessments were of a tick box nature and were not personalised and provided little information to help inform staff.

Staff had received training in how to safeguard people from potential abuse. The registered manager had arranged further face to face safeguarding training to help improve staff knowledge and after which staff competency would be checked.

People told us that they were involved with their care planning and had discussed this with staff. People were asked for their consent before staff supported them.

People and their relatives told us that they felt their family members were kept safe and raised no concerns when asked about their safety. People and their relatives gave positive feedback about the service they received by the service. Staff developed appropriate positive and caring relationships with the people they supported and their families. Staff were knowledgeable about people`s preferred routines and delivered care that was individualised to the person they were supporting.

Recruitment processes were in place to help ensure that staff employed at the service were of a good character and suitable to meet people`s needs safely. There were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people’s individual needs. However this did include the registered manager working full time to cover care visits

People were prompted and assisted to take their medicines. However staff had not received training during their employment at the service but had previous experience in administering medicines. The registered manager had arranged this training following the inspection.

Staff supported people to maintain their health and well- being where this was required.

People told us they felt the staff provided care and support that was delivered in a way that promoted their dignity and respected their privacy. People's personal information was stored securely and confidentiality was maintained.

People told us they felt that staff listened to them and responded to them in a positive way. People and their relatives knew how to raise concerns and they were confident that the manager would take appropriate action to address any concerns they raised.

People were asked to provide feedback about the service they received regularly. However this was not always recorded and this was an area that required improvement.

People and their relatives were positive about the management of the service and the staff who worked at the service. The registered manager had not implemented a quality assurance system but was aware of the need to do this and was in the process of doing this at the time of our inspection.