We carried out an announced inspection on 9 May 2016. Between this date and 14 June 2016, we spoke with people who used the service, relatives and staff by telephone.

The service provides personal care to over 200 adults in their own homes. Some of the people being supported by the service were living with a variety of care needs including dementia. The service also supported seven children and young people.

There was 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.

There were risk assessments in place that gave guidance to staff on how risks to people could be minimised. There were systems in place to safeguard people from risk of possible harm. When required, suitable equipment was in place so that people were supported safely.

The provider had effective recruitment processes in place and there was sufficient numbers of staff to support people safely. Staff had received regular supervision and had been effectively trained to meet people’s individual needs. However, the provider needed to improve how they supported staff, particularly those from other countries.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to seek people’s consent prior to care and support being provided. However, newer staff needed more training to understand the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People were supported by caring, friendly and respectful staff. They were enabled to make choices about how they wanted to be supported.

People’s needs had been assessed, and care plans took account of their individual needs, preferences, and choices. They were supported to eat and drink well, and to access other health and social care services when required.

The provider had a formal process for handling complaints and concerns. They encouraged feedback from people and acted on the comments received to continuously improve the quality of the service.

The provider had effective quality monitoring processes in place and these had been used effectively to drive continuous improvements. Most people described the service as ‘very good’. They had no concerns about how care was provided and how the service was managed, but some felt that communication between office staff and care staff needed to be improved.

When we inspected Prime Care Support Limited on 16 October 2012, they were providing care packages to approximate 120 people in their own homes. We spoke with six people who used the service and their relatives. We found that people were generally very satisfied and happy with the care and support they received. The relative of one person said "The carers treat mum with dignity and privacy, they have been key in changing her quality of life".

We noted from the six care files that we looked at, that people were offered support at a level which encouraged independence and ensured that their individual needs were met. People told us that the staff were friendly and courteous in their approach and were knowledgeable and confident in their roles. One person told us, "The staff are fantastic, they're just like my friends now". Someone else said "They are exceptional, I wouldn't want to change them".

We could see from records that people were encouraged to express their views and were involved in planning their care and making decisions about their care and support. The provider welcomed suggestions from people which could improve the service they provided. People told us that they felt able to approach the manager to discuss anything, and they were confident that swift action would be taken to resolve any issues they had.

We inspected the offices of Prime Care Support limited on 28 November 2013. We also spoke to people who used the service separately. People told us that the care they received from the staff at Prime Care Support was 'very good' and the service was 'excellent'. They told us that the staff were flexible and always 'turned up on time' or if they were running late would let the person know. People told us that they had 'no problems' with the provider.

We found that the provider was meeting the regulations by gaining consent from people both written and verbally when required. People were cared for by staff who had received the appropriate training and staff treated people with dignity and respect. The provider had a robust quality control system in place and the service was also monitored by the local authority and acted on any recommendations that were made. We noted the provider had a detailed complaints procedure in place and that people who used the service told us they had the confidence in the provider to act on any complaints or issues that they had.