Pamir Homecare provides a range of services to people in their own home including personal care. People using the service had a range of needs such as learning and/or physical disabilities and dementia. The service mainly provided personal care for people on short visits at key times of the day to help people get up in the morning, go to bed at night and support with meals. At the time of our inspection 11 people were receiving personal care in their own homes.

Not everyone using Pamir Homecare received a regulated activity. CQC only inspect the service received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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.

When we last visited the service on 26 June 2016 and we were not able to award a rating because, the service only had one person at the time of our inspection, which meant we did not have enough evidence to enable us to rate them.

There were effective systems and processes in place to minimise risks to people. People told us they were safe. The service had safeguarding systems and processes to support care workers to protect people from avoidable harm. There were safeguarding, whistleblowing and anti-bullying and harassment policies in place and care workers were aware of how to raise concerns. Care workers underwent appropriate recruitment checks prior to working at the service. There was an adequate number of care workers deployed to meet the person’s needs. The registered manager told us care workers were allocated according to geographical areas, which reduced travel time and therefore improved timeliness. Equally, people received help with medicines in the way they wanted. They were supported to take their medicines by staff who had been trained in doing so.

People gave us consistently positive feedback about how the service was meeting their needs. Each person had a care plan that described the type of support required and how this was delivered. This was accomplished by the service working alongside a multidisciplinary team, which comprised members of different disciplines, such as occupational therapist, pharmacist, social workers and GPs, who were also involved the planning and treatment of people. People's capacity to make choices had been considered in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). They told us that care workers asked for permission before attending to their needs. The service had supported care workers to have the skills and knowledge to carry out their role. Care workers had received regular training and support.

People told us care workers were kind and caring. They told us care workers treated them with respect and maintained their privacy. People's individual preferences were respected. Their care plans contained detailed information so that care workers could understand their preferences. People’s independence was supported. Their care plans highlighted the importance of functional independence and so care workers were directed to prompt people to increase eating or dressing independence. Care workers had a good understanding of protecting and respecting people's human rights. They treated people’s values, beliefs and cultures with respect. In keeping with the human rights requirements, there were practical provisions for people’s differences to be respected.

People received person centred care. They told us that they had been involved when their care plans were written. By involving people, the service could deliver care that met their preferences. People

This inspection took place on 29 June 2016 and was announced. We told the provider one day before our visit that we would be coming. The service provides domiciliary care and support to people living in their own homes. This is our first inspection since registering the service with the Care Quality Commission in April 2015.

We will not be able to award a rating because, the service only had one person at the time of our inspection, which meant we did not have enough evidence to enable us to rate them. The registered manager informed us they will be looking to support more people in the future.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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.

People receiving care felt safe with the support they received from care staff. There were arrangements in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse.

The service had procedures for monitoring and managing risks to people.

The care file contained risk assessments. The risk assessments identified risks and actions required of care staff to minimise the risk.

People were protected from the recruitment of unsuitable staff. Recruitment records contained the relevant checks.

Care staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care. They had received Care Certificate induction and training in relevant areas of their work.

Staff treated people with compassion, dignity and respect and people were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.

Care staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The person receiving care was involved in making decisions about their care and support. Their consent was sought and documented.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficiently to maintain a balanced diet.

The service encouraged people to raise any concerns they had and we saw from records concerns were responded to in a timely manner.

The service was well managed. It proactively sought feedback from staff and people, which it acted on.