At our last inspection in December 2015, we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated as Good:

The inspection took place on 3 August 2018 and was announced. The provider was given short notice because the location was a domiciliary care agency and we needed to be sure that someone would be present in the office.

Network Healthcare Professionals provides a personal care service to people living in their own home. On the day of the inspection one person was supported by Network Healthcare Professionals with their personal care needs.

Domiciliary care services provide personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care. Network Healthcare Professionals Limited is registered to provide personal care to adults and people over 65 years who may have sensory impairments, physical disabilities, learning difficulties or autistic disorder.

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 care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service was well-led with person-centred values and a vision to provide high quality care. The management team were open and approachable. The registered manager listened to feedback and reflected on how the service could be further improved. Staff and relatives confirmed the service was well organised.

People were protected from harm and discrimination. People’s human rights were protected because the code of practice in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was understood and followed. People’s nutritional needs were met because staff followed people’s support plans to make sure people were eating and drinking enough and potential risks related to their health needs were known.

People were treated equally and fairly. Staff adapted their communication methods dependent upon people’s needs, for example using simple questions. Verbal information and explanations about care were given to people with cognitive difficulties and if appropriate the service was able to develop pictorial care plans people would understand.

People were supported by staff who were compassionate, kind and caring. All staff demonstrated kindness for people through their conversations and interactions. People were supported by a consistent staff group who knew them well. People’s privacy and dignity was promoted. As far as possible, people were actively involved in making simple choices and decisions about how they wanted to live their lives. People were protected from abuse because staff understood what action to take if they were concerned someone was being abused or mistreated.

People had support plans which described how they liked their needs met and their individual routines. People’s support was reviewed regularly to ensure the service provided to them changed as they did. Healt

The inspection took place on 17 December 2015 and was announced. The provider was given short notice because the location was a domiciliary care agency and we needed to be sure that someone would be present in the office.

Network Healthcare Professionals provides a personal care service to people living in their own home. On the day of the inspection one person was supported by Network Healthcare Professionals with their personal care needs. This person spent time with their family one week and time being cared for by Network Healthcare staff to enable their family to have a break.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

On the day of the inspection staff within the office were relaxed, there was a calm and friendly atmosphere. Everybody in the office had a clear role within the service. Information we requested was supplied promptly, records were clear, organised and comprehensive.

People’s relatives, staff and professionals all spoke positively about the service. Comments included “They really set a standard, we couldn’t be happier because “X” is happy. “X” always looks forward to returning to their flat, we know they have a good experience, they are the centre of attention!” and “We were very resistive to an agency but reached the point we had no alternative. It has been a hugely positive experience” and “Yes, it is well-led, it’s be very reassuring for us.”

All staff had undertaken training on safeguarding adults from abuse, they displayed good knowledge on how to report any concerns and described what action they would take to protect people against harm. Staff told us they felt confident any incidents or allegations would be fully investigated.

Staff received essential training that reflected the person’s needs, and training on how to support people with their particular, individual health needs.

People were protected by the service’s safe recruitment practices. Staff underwent the necessary checks which determined they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults, before they started their employment.

Relative’s told us staff provided consistent personalised care and support. Care records were focused on empowering people to have control where possible. Staff responded quickly to people’s change in needs. People and those who matter to them were involved in identifying their needs and how they would like to be supported. People’s preferences were sought and respected. Staff focused upon a person’s whole life. People’s life histories and strengths were taken into account, communicated and recorded.

People were promoted to live full and active lives and were supported to go out and use local services and facilities. Activities were meaningful and reflected people’s interests and individual hobbies.

People where appropriate were supported to maintain a healthy balanced diet and people’s specific dietary needs were met.

People’s risks were anticipated, identified and monitored. Staff managed risk effectively and actively supported people’s independence.

People had their medicines managed safely. People were supported to maintain good health. Referrals were made quickly to healthcare professionals, such as GPs, specialists or the learning disability team when needed.

People, staff and relatives knew how to raise concerns and make complaints.

Staff put people at the heart of their work; they exhibited a kind and compassionate attitude towards people. Strong relationships had been developed and practice was person focused and not task led. Staff had a good appreciation of the importance of respecting people’s individual needs around their privacy and dignity.

Staff described the management to be very open, supportive and approachable.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place.

We spoke with the registered manager and deputy manager, two members of care staff and office staff. We also spoke to a family member of a person being supported. We were unable to speak to people using the service or do a home visit due to the individuals very complex care needs, challenging behaviour and communication needs.

We saw that people had specific and individualistic care plans. These were updated daily in accordance to people's wishes. Care plans had been in text format but easy read care plans with pictures were being designed by the registered manager. This demonstrated that there had been an awareness of the relevance for people to read and understand their own care plans and action taken to enable it.

Support staff worked in teams to support the individuals and promotion of independence was evident from the care plans viewed. Staff had all received a thorough core training programme that included safeguarding and attended regular updates.

There were sufficient support workers to meet people's needs and appropriate background checks had been completed on all staff. Audits were in place to continually monitor and assess the quality of care and support provided.

When we carried out our inspection, support was being provided to one person. We were not able to speak with the person being supported but we did have the opportunity to speak to a relative and a commissioner of the service.

On the first day of the inspection we visited the office, reviewed records, met with and spoke with two members of staff. On the second day of the inspection we spoke with a relative, a commissioner of the service and two members of staff.

One relative we spoke with told us that they were very happy with the service, which they described as “extremely reliable”. They told us their family member was always treated with respect and dignity by staff and that communication with the staff team was good. They added, “They have very high standards. X has received excellent care from them”. We spoke with a commissioner of the service. They told us the service provided was to a “very good standard”. They told us that the service was flexible and that staff had a “problem solving approach”.

We found the service compliant with the outcomes we inspected. People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse. There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.