Purple Professional Services is a domiciliary care agency and provides personal care to people living in their own houses in the community. At the time of our inspection four people were being provided with a service.

Not everyone using Purple Professionals Services Limited receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being 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.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People told us they felt safe with the care provided. Risks to people were appropriately planned for and managed.

People told us there were enough competent staff to provide them with support when they needed it.

Staff had received appropriate training, support and development to carry out their role effectively.

People received appropriate support to maintain healthy nutrition and hydration.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People told us they were treated with kindness by staff who respected their privacy and upheld their dignity.

People were given the opportunity to feed back on the service and their views were acted on.

People received personalised care that met their individual needs. People were given appropriate support and encouragement to access to follow their individual interests.

People told us they knew how to complain and were confident they would be listened to if they wished to make a complaint.

The management team worked hard to create an open, transparent and inclusive atmosphere within the service. People, staff and external health professionals were invited to take part in discussions around shaping the future of the service.

There was a robust quality assurance system in place and shortfalls identified were promptly acted on to improve the service.

This inspection took place on 02 December 2015 and was announced. At our last inspection in September 2013 the service was found to be meeting our essential standards.

Purple Professional Services are a service based in Luton which provide contact centres for children and parents and are registered with the Care Quality Commission to offer a domiciliary care service for adults. At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care to one person in their own home for an hour a day

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.

The service provided safe care to the person being supported. The person’s care plan was detailed, regularly reviewed and included assessments of any risk for staff working in their home. Consent was provided on the person’s behalf and their relatives were regularly involved in the planning and review of their care.

The person was supported by enough trained and skilled staff to meet their needs. Staff had received training which was regularly refreshed and appropriate to their role. The relative of the person told us that staff delivered friendly and compassionate care to the person and there were enough staff to meet their individual needs.

The service had completed all pre-employment checks to ensure that staff were suitable to do the job they were employed to do. However we found that staff were not regularly supervised and did not receive regular performance reviews.

The service had systems in place for handling complaints. Quality assurance was carried out by holding regular reviews of the person’s care involving their relative. The relative of the person and staff told us that management were friendly and approachable.

At the time of our visit on 27 November 2012 one younger person was using this service. We spoke to a relative of the person, who was unable to talk to us. They said that the staff were reliable and arrived on time. We were told that the same staff team provided care to their relative and this was “…exactly what we need; the same people who know what to do.“

We were told that individual care workers were very kind, provided a good level of care and were always willing to help. The individual we spoke with said staff were polite, respectful and treated their relative and other family members with dignity.

The care plan for the person using the service showed that the family were involved in contributing to the care plan. This was confirmed in the discussion we had with the relative of the person using the service.

We spoke with three family members of people who use the service, three staff members and the registered manager.

We found where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements and acted appropriately. The care plans we looked at had been signed by a family member on behalf of their relative. People were made aware of their rights. For example, a family member said, “I am aware that I can change any decisions about care and support that has previously been agreed. I have exercised that right and have asked for changes to be made to the care plan. My request was granted.”

People experienced care and support that met their individual needs and ensured that care was provided consistently. For example, a relative of a person using the service said, “My… can’t handle change therefore, we have the same carer all the time.”

We found the agency had effective systems in place to protect people against the risk of acquiring a health care associated infection.

The agency had effective recruitment procedures to ensure appropriate checks were undertaken before staff commenced work.

We found the agency had systems in place to assess and monitor the care provided to people to ensure care provided was safe and effective.