We undertook an announced inspection of Sunnyside Domiciliary Support Services Ltd on13 and 19 January 2017. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in. At our last inspection on 5 March 2014, the service met the standards in all the areas we inspected.

Sunnyside Domiciliary Support Services provides a service to people living in supported living accommodation in the London Borough of Bromley, as well as to people living in their own homes in the borough. Some people received personal care. At the time of the inspection, there were six people using the service, including four people who lived in a purpose built block of flats, which the local authority used for supported accommodation. The accommodation was maintained and owned by a housing association.

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.

People were supported to maintain healthy diets and ensure their nutritional requirements were met. They had access to treatment from health professionals and staff contacted them in emergencies. There were recruitment procedures in place and staff were recruited safely. People were prompted to take their medicines as prescribed.

Staff respected people's privacy and choice. They told us they had support, training and supervision. They had knowledge of safeguarding and whistle blowing procedures and were able to describe the steps they should take to protect people from abuse and how to report incidents of abuse. Records showed they regularly attended staff meetings with the management team.

People told us they made their own decisions regarding various day-to-day tasks including choices of food, activities and daily routines. We noted there were systems in place that adhered to the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and they were implemented when required.

Each person had a support plan which stated their support needs. The support plans were regularly reviewed to reflect any changing needs. People felt independent and had improved their daily living skills whilst in the service.

People and relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint. They said staff listened to them and they were happy with the way the registered manager responded to complaints.

The registered manager had systems in place for auditing and monitoring the service to ensure quality was being maintained. Fire safety checks took place and people's finances and medicines were regularly audited. A survey questionnaire was distributed to people and their relatives to ask them for their opinion about their experience using the service. The registered manager analysed the responses to the questionnaires and responded to any feedback to help improve the service.

At the time of our inspection the service was providing care and support to seven people in their own homes. We visited one person in their home and spoke with people and their relatives over the telephone in order to gain their views and experiences of the care and support provided. They told us they were happy with their care and support and felt that the service provided a very "Personal" touch.

People and their relatives told us they were visited regularly by the management and that the service was usually responsive to requests. They also said that they felt confident with reporting any concerns to the manager in order for the appropriate action to be taken.

People we spoke with told us they "Liked" the staff. One person's relative said that staff were "Excellent" and "Always go out of their way to help". However, we found that appropriate checks had not always been completed to ensure that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

We found that the service gained regular feedback from people and had robust quality and assurance procedures in place to monitor the effectiveness and safety of the care and support provided.

During our visit we spoke with the registered manager. We also spoke with three representatives of people who used the service, and three members of staff over the telephone after the visit ended. Those people who used the service told us they were happy with the care and support provided by the agency and that they had been involved in assessments to decide if the service could meet their relative’s needs. One relative told us, “They are very flexible, caring and responsive. In my opinion, great value for money”. Another relative told us, ” They regularly keep me informed and they are doing a really good job.”

Representatives of people who used the service felt their relatives were treated with respect, their dignity was promoted and they were supported to meet their care needs, whilst being enabled to maintain and develop their independence. Staff said they were well supported by the registered manager and were given regular opportunities to talk with him. Staff also told us they attended relevant training courses to inform and direct their work, and they received regular supervision and annual appraisal. The provider and staff were aware of their responsibilities regarding protecting vulnerable people from abuse. Staff told us they knew how to raise concerns and would not hesitate to do so if they were concerned. The provider had quality assurance systems in place to check that the quality of the service being delivered was meeting people’s needs.

We spoke with people who use the service and friends and relatives of people who use the service. People told us that they were fully involved in making decisions about their care, and that their independence was promoted. People told us they had been involved in drawing up their support plans.

People had been given information about how to make a complaint and felt confident that if they did complain that they would be listened to and taken seriously.

People said that their privacy and dignity were respected.

Friends and relatives said that people were happy with the agency and that they were kept informed of any issues. People could not think of anything the agency could do better.