My Homecare Derby is a ‘domiciliary care service.’ People receive personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates the care provided, and this was looked at during this inspection. The service provides personal care for older people and younger adults. This was the first inspection of the service. It was a comprehensive inspection.

The inspection took place on 29 June 2018. The inspection was announced because we wanted to make sure that management were available to conduct the inspection. The nominated individual stated that seven people were using the service at the time of the inspection.

A registered manager was in post. This is a condition of the registration of 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Call times had not always been timely to respond to people’s needs.

Management had carried out some audits in order to check that the service was meeting people's needs and to ensure people were provided with a quality service, though whether people received their calls on time and not yet been audited.

Staff recruitment checks were in place to protect people from receiving personal care from unsuitable staff. Risk assessments were carried out to protect people from risks to their health and welfare.

People and relatives thought staff provided safe personal care. Staff had been trained in safeguarding (protecting people from abuse) and understood their responsibilities in this area. Policies set out that when a safeguarding incident occurred management needed to take appropriate action by referring to the relevant safeguarding agency. The nominated individual was aware these incidents, if they occurred, needed to be reported to us, as legally required.

Medicines had been prompted or supplied so that people could take their medicine safely and on time, to their health needs, and records evidenced this had happened.

Staff had received training to ensure they had skills and knowledge to meet people's needs.

Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to allow, as much as possible, people to have effective choices about how they lived their lives. Staff were aware to ask people’s consent when they provided personal care. A system to determine people’s capacity was not yet in place so any restrictions on choice in people’s best interest had not been formally consulted on.

People and relatives told us that staff were friendly, kind, positive and caring. They said they had been involved in making decisions about how and what personal care was needed to meet any identified needs.

Care plans were individual to the people using the service, which helped to ensure that their needs were met.

People and relatives were confident that any concerns they had would be properly followed up. They were satisfied with how the service was run.

Staff members said they had been fully supported in their work by the management of the service.