This inspection took place on 2 November 2016, with follow up telephone calls being made to people who used the service, their relatives and staff on 3 and 4 November 2016. The inspection was announced. The service had been registered with the Care Quality Commission since August 2013 and had previously been inspected during May 2014, when the service was found to be compliant in all areas inspected.

Clarriots Care (Lancashire South) provides domiciliary care services to approximately 30 people in their own homes. The people who receive these services have a wide range of needs.

The service had 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.

People told us they felt safe and staff had received safeguarding training in order to keep people safe. There were robust recruitment practices in place, which meant staff had been recruited safely. Risks to people and staff had been assessed and reduced where possible.

Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and logged. Staff were aware of actions to take in an emergency and they took appropriate action in the event of any accidents or incidents.

People received effective care and support to meet their needs. People and their relatives felt staff had the necessary skills and training to provide effective care and support. Staff told us they felt supported and we saw staff had received thorough induction training as well as ongoing training, supervision and appraisal.

Care and support was provided in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We saw from the care files we reviewed, consent had been sought and obtained from people, prior to their care and support being provided. Where a decision had been made in a person’s best interests, appropriate steps had been followed and necessary assessments had been completed.

People we spoke with told us staff were caring. The staff we spoke with were enthusiastic and were driven to provide good quality care. Staff told us how they respected people’s privacy and dignity and the people we spoke with confirmed this. People were encouraged to maintain their independence.

Care and support plans were detailed and personalised, taking into account people’s choices and preferences. People, and their relatives where appropriate, had been involved in their care planning and people told us they could make their own choices. Appropriate referrals for additional support for people were made when necessary.

People told us the service was responsive and flexible to their needs.

People and the staff we asked told us they felt the service was well led. Although there was a lack of evidence of some audits, quality assurance checks regularly took place, and feedback was given to staff in order to improve the service. Staff told us they felt supported and people felt able to contact the office in the knowledge they would be listened to.

The registered manager was open and receptive to feedback given at the inspection.

This was a newly registered agency that provided support to a small number of service users. Most people had only been in receipt of support for a few weeks or months. People had individual private contracts in place.

The inspection was undertaken by the lead inspector for the service. We set out to answer five important questions. 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, and 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 training, written guidance and appropriate working practices helped to keep people safe and protected against any potential abuse. People using the service and the relatives we spoke with expressed confidence in the staff team. Comments included; “I am quite happy to leave my wife in their care.”

Effective recruitment procedures were in place. Robust checks helped to ensure only suitable staff were employed.

Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected. Staff understood their responsibilities in keeping people safe.

Is the service effective?

The individual or their representative such as a relative was involved in the assessment and support planning processes. Support plans reflected people’s individual wishes and preferences.

Staff we spoke with told us support plans contained enough appropriate information about the needs of each person.

The service users, relatives and staff we spoke with confirmed that continuity of staff was given a high priority. People were supported by the same staff or same small team of staff. This helped to promote consistency of care.

Is the service caring?

People told us they were supported by kind and attentive staff. Comments included; “They are always polite” “I am very pleased with the quality of the service.” And “The staff are most courteous.”

Relatives also told us they were satisfied with the quality of care provided.

People using the service and their relatives told us they felt able to raise any issues or make suggestions.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that some people had their support visits increased to meet their changing needs. Individuals had requested an increase in service provision and this had been accommodated.

One person explained that they had requested a change of carer and this had been swiftly addressed.

Is the service well-led?

The manager worked directly with each person using the service and had an excellent understanding of their individual needs.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and were supported to work to a high standard. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service.

People who used the service and their relatives told us they knew how to contact the manager at the office if they had any queries or concerns.