This inspection took place on 29 and 30 November 2017 and was announced. Petts Wood Homecare Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses, to older adults, people living with dementia, physical disability and sensory impairment. At the time of the inspection, 34 people were using the service.

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.

Risk to people had been assessed and reviewed regularly to ensure their needs were safely met. Medicines were managed safely and people were supported to take their medicines as prescribed by healthcare professionals. Both the management team and care staff knew of their responsibility to protect people from abuse and report and record any concerns of abuse. Adequate numbers of staff were deployed to support people. The provider had systems in place to ensure suitable staff were recruited for the role. Where issues were identified, lessons were learnt and improvements were made to the service. Appropriate measures were taken to ensure that people were protected from infectious diseases and staff had completed infection control and food hygiene training.

Staff were aware of the importance of seeking consent from people they supported and demonstrated an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Staff completed an induction when they started work and received training relevant to support people. Staff were supported with supervision; however, staff appraisals required improvement. Assessment of people's care and support needs were carried out by managers before people started using the service. People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts for their wellbeing. The provider worked well together with other organisations such as the local authority and the NHS to deliver safe and effective care. People were supported to access healthcare services when they needed it.

Staff were compassionate towards people and were kind to them with dignity and respected. Staff knew people well and their preferences and respected their choices. People's independence was promoted to ensure they continue living in their own homes. People were involved in their care planning to ensure the care delivered met their needs. Staff said they would support people with diverse needs and had received equality and diversity training to ensure they had appropriate skills to so. People received personalised care that met their needs. The service was flexible and made changes to meet people’s individual needs. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint but did not have anything to complain about at the time of our inspection. People were provided with appropriate information when they started using the service to ensure they were aware of the standard of support they should expect.

The service had a registered manager who was experienced and complied with the Health and Social Care Act 2008. Both the management team and care staff knew of the provider’s values and vision. The provider assessed and monitored the quality of the service and gathered people’s views through surveys and care plan reviews. The provider undertook spot checks to ensure quality and consistency were maintained. Staff said they enjoyed working at the service and received good support from their managers.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask; 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 people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them 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 were aware of the importance of consent and people were asked for their consent before care was provided. People’s needs were assessed and risk assessments were carried out before care was provided. These were regularly reviewed so that staff had a current picture of possible risks.

Staff were aware of infection control procedures and training was provided. Staff were able to demonstrate their awareness of the importance of hand washing, safe removal of waste and the use of personal protective equipment.

Effective recruitment procedures were in place to ensure that suitable staff were employed.

Is the service caring?

There were twelve people using the service on the day of the inspection although not all of these people received personal care. We spoke with five people or their relatives of people who received personal care. People we spoke with and or their relatives were happy with the care provided. One relative told us “The staff are gentle and show meticulous attention to (my relative’s) wellbeing.” They also said my relative “is aware of their presence and brightens on their arrival.” Another person told us “It is very good indeed. I can’t fault it.”

There was an up to date assessment of people's needs. The service consisted of a small staff team who were clearly familiar with people’s needs and preferences. People who used the service and /or their relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of care and relatives were kept advised of any changes. Health professionals were contacted if required in consultation with family members.

Is the service effective?

We saw that people's needs were assessed and a plan drawn up to meet those needs. People told us they were happy with the plan provided. Regular reviews were made of the plan provided and people or their relatives told us they were involved in the reviews. There were suitable policies in place for consent to care, infection control and recruitment.

People who used the service were consulted for their views on a regular basis. Any changes they requested were included in a revised care plan.

New staff had been recruited and were provided with adequate support, guidance and training to do their job.

Is the service responsive?

Relatives of people who used the service said that the staff would contact them if they identified a need for their relative to attend a chiropody or a hair appointment or if their relative had run out of something. They would offer to do shopping if needed. People told us that the service was reliable and able to manage staff sickness or holidays without impacting on the delivery of care.

If staff had concerns about someone who used the service they would follow this up with the family. Staff said that if someone’s needs changed and equipment was required the office would respond quickly. Some people told us they had asked for extra help and the service had usually been able to respond.

Is the service well led?

The registered manager and nominated individual were involved in direct care and worked with all the staff. They felt this meant they could identify any issues quickly and address them if they arose. We saw an example of this in relation to uniforms which had been identified and addressed. They also had regular contact with all the service users and checked with them how the care provided was working.

We were shown a staff hand book which meant that staff had a reference guide when they were working in the community. We saw that it was detailed and, as well as employee information, had details about areas such as lone working, confidentiality, ID badges and uniform.

Regular staff meetings and supervision sessions were held. Staff said they felt able to raise any issues with the management.

We spoke with people using the service and staff at the agency during our inspection. People told us they were very happy with the service and staff were always polite to them. People said the staff arrived on time and were kind to them and conscientious at all times when providing care and support. We were told by one relative that the staff at the agency communicated well and they were very pleased with the service.

We found that people were consulted with about their care and encouraged to be independent were able. Staff had a good knowledge of how to respond to any safeguarding concerns and people told us they felt safe with the staff in their homes. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and records were stored securely.

This announced inspection took place on 26 and 28 October 2015. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be coming, as we wanted to make sure the office staff and registered manager would be available. At the last inspection on 29 April 2014 the service was meeting all the legal requirements we inspected.

Petts Wood Homecare Limited is a domiciliary care service providing support for people living in their own homes in the borough of Bromley. They provide care and support to older people, service user‘s living with dementia, physical disability and or sensory impairment. At the time of the inspection there were 30 people using the service. There was a registered manager who had been there since the service started in 2012. 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.’

People told us they felt safe from harm and well cared for by the service. Staff had received training on safeguarding adults, so they knew the signs of possible abuse. Possible risks to people were identified and guidance was in place to reduce risk. There were suitable arrangements to deal with emergencies.

There were enough care workers and office staff to meet people’s needs and the provider followed safe recruitment policies. Staff received suitable training and support to carry out their roles. People were asked for their consent before care was provided and staff were aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (2005). People’s dietary needs were met, where they needed support to manage this. The service linked with health professionals to ensure people’s changing health needs were addressed.

People told us that care workers were caring and kind and often went out of their way to support them. Most people had a small group of care workers, who they said knew their needs and preferences well. People told us they were treated with respect and dignity and that they were involved in decisions about their care.

People had an assessed and written plan of care available in their homes; these were up to date and people told us they reflected their needs and individuality. People said they were involved in reviewing the plans and that any changes were updated in the care plan. There was a complaints procedure and people knew how to raise a complaint.

People and their relatives told us the service was well run, efficient and provided consistent care. It was a small service with a stable management team who were themselves delivering some direct care and were therefore familiar with people’s needs. There were robust communication systems about people’s needs and staff felt well supported in their roles. New systems to monitor the quality of the service had been recently introduced, as the service had started to grow. People told us they were asked for their views about the service and felt listened to. The provider had an openness to listen to feedback and consider any improvements that could be made.