This comprehensive inspection took place on the 20, 23 and 27 October 2017 and was announced. Precious Hope Health and Home Care is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in Northampton, Rushden and Wellingborough areas. At the time of the inspection 33 people were using the service.

At the last inspection in September 2016 the service was rated ‘Requires Improvement’ under ‘Safe’ and ‘Well-Led’ and the overall rating was ‘Requires Improvement’. We saw the provider had displayed the ratings, on their website and it was also on display within the agency office. At this inspection we found the provider had made the necessary improvements as identified at the last inspection, namely to the call monitoring system and the overall monitoring of the service. The service is now rated as Good.

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.

Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe and systems were in place to respond to any concerns of abuse. Individual risks to people’s health and welfare were assessed and appropriate measures were in place to effectively manage risks.

Recruitment procedures were sufficiently robust to protect people from receiving unsafe care from staff unsuitable to work at the service. There was sufficient staff available to meet people’s support needs. Where the service took on the responsibility for peoples’ medicines these were managed safely.

People were involved in decisions about their care and support needs as much as they were able. Staff were aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and applied their knowledge appropriately.

Staff knew the people who used the service well. People were given choices about their day to day routines and about how they wanted their care to be delivered. People’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times. People were involved in planning their care, the care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed.

People received care from staff that had the appropriate skills and knowledge to meet their needs. All staff received on-going training to refresh their knowledge and skills.

The service was open and transparent, systems were in place to receive and respond to complaints. Notifications were submitted to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as required and the provider worked with other healthcare providers and commissioners.

Systems were in place for the provider to effectively monitor all aspects of the service to continually drive improvement.

This announced inspection took place over two days on 26 and 27 September 2016.

The service provides support with personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were 18 people using the service.

The service did not have 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 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 registered manager for the service had resigned in July 2016 however they had yet to cancel their registration to manage the service with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The provider told us that they had appointed a new manager for the service and that they had submitted the relevant documents to CQC to begin the registered manager application process.

People did not always have the correct information regarding the staff that would be attending their support call and could not always be assured that the visit would take place at the agreed time. The provider was aware of this and was currently working to improve the consistency and timing of care visits.

The provider did not have all appropriate measures in place to assure themselves of the quality and safety of the service. The system in place to monitor care staff attendance at care visits was not sufficiently robust. The provider was aware of this and was taking action to implement a new system of call monitoring.

There were systems in place to manage medicines safely. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and people had specific care plans relating to the provision of their medicines.

People were protected from harm arising from poor practice or abuse as there were clear safeguarding procedures in place for care staff to follow if they were concerned about people’s safety. Staff understood the need to protect people from harm and knew what action they should take if they had any concerns.

Recruitment procedures were sufficiently robust to protect people from receiving unsafe care from support staff that were unsuitable to work at the service.

People were actively involved in decisions about their care and support needs as much as they were able. Staff were aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA2005) and applied their knowledge appropriately. There was a Mental Capacity policy and procedure for staff to follow to assess whether people had the capacity to make decisions for themselves.

People received care from staff that were kind and friendly. People had meaningful interactions with staff and looked forward to seeing the staff. People received care at their own pace and were treated with dignity and respect.

Care records contained individual risk assessments and risk management plans to protect people from identified risks and help to keep them safe. Care plans were written in a person centred approach and detailed how people wished to be supported and where possible people were involved in making decisions about their care.

People received care from staff who had the appropriate skills and knowledge to meet their needs. All staff had undergone the provider’s induction and the provider had a plan in place for on going training.

Staff were aware of the importance of managing complaints promptly and in line with the provider’s policy. Staff and people were confident that issues would be addressed and that any concerns they had would be listened to.