A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer the five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

Most of the people who used this service and their relatives told us they were pleased with the care provided. They felt that their views were respected and listened to.

People we spoke with told us they felt that their dignity was respected and they were involved in making decisions about their daily life. They considered they were well protected and supported. One person told us, “They are all reliable and respectful”.

Is the service effective?

People’s on going needs were regularly re assessed and their care planned with them. People told us they had been satisfied with how they were assisted by the service. They said they had been asked about their preferences, choice and wishes before receiving any care. Staff we spoke with showed that they knew people’s needs well. This meant people were supported to maintain their health and well-being.

Is the service caring?

People we spoke with told us that staff treated them kindly and that their individual needs were met.

Most people we talked with told us their wishes were respected and they were able to live their lives as they wished. Staff talked to people and took the time to find out about their background. Staff knew people’s needs well and how they needed to be supported. This meant that staff cared about the person as an individual and were concerned about their well-being and personal development.

Is the service responsive?

People had been assessed before they were provided with a service so that arrangements could be made to meet their needs.

People and their relatives told us they had talked with the staff about what was important to them. Some told us that that they were unclear who they could talk to if they had concerns because of the recent changes in the management structure of the service.

Is the service well led?

A new manager had recently been appointed and was about to start the process of applying to be registered with us so that we could assess whether or not they are fit to manage such a service.

We talked with the acting manager and the staff who all demonstrated values that promoted involvement, openness, dignity, respect and independence. They showed they understood those values as they discussed their role and responsibilities in their work. This meant the service promoted an open culture that was centred on the individuals who used the service.

Our inspection was carried out by one inspector. They helped answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with staffing and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Staff knew about risk management plans and showed us examples where they had followed them. People were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. No staff had been subject to disciplinary action. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected. This meant the provider could demonstrate that the staff employed to work for the service were suitable and had the skills and experience needed to support the people who used the service.

The registered manager sets the staff rotas, they take people’s care needs into account when making decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required. This helped to ensure that people’s needs were always met and a member of the management team was available on call in case of emergencies.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Is the service effective?

It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of the people’s care and support needs and that they knew them well. Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

People’s health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. Specialist needs had been identified where required. The care plans were up to date and reflected the people's current needs.

There was an advocacy service available if people needed it, this meant that when required people could access additional support.

Is the service caring?

Feedback received from people was positive, for example; “I don’t feel rushed by the staff when they are working with me”.

People using the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed a satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were taken on board and dealt with.

People’s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People’s needs had been assessed before the service commenced.

Is the service well-led?

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

The service has a quality assurance system, and records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.

We were not able to speak with many people who used the agency, but we looked at records and spoke with some people who had used the agency in the past. People told us, "they're very helpful" and, "the staff are first rate". Senior staff from the agency had a very good knowledge of people's individual needs. They showed a genuine compassion for each person. One person told us, "last winter when the weather was bad, they worked so hard to make sure I got my visits".

Care plans were detailed and gave staff the information they needed. Daily records included clear information about the care that staff had provided. People had opportunities to discuss their care with senior staff from the agency. The agency was responsive to changes in people's needs.

Staff received a range of training to give them the skills and knowledge they needed. Managers regularly monitored the quality of the service and made sure that they asked for people's views about the agency.