The Old Roselyon Domiciliary Care Agency is a community service that provides care and support to adults of all ages, in their own homes. The service provides help with people’s personal care needs in Par, Fowey, St Austell and surrounding areas. This includes people with physical disabilities and dementia care needs. The service mainly provides personal care for people in short visits at key times of the day to help people get up in the morning, go to bed at night and support with meals.

At the time of our inspection 43 people were receiving a personal care service. These services were funded either privately or through Cornwall Council.

We carried out this announced inspection on 3 and 4 May 2017. The inspection was announced a few days advance in accordance with the Care Quality Commission’s current procedures for inspecting domiciliary care services. At the last inspection, in May 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People told us they felt safe using the service. Relatives also said they thought the service was safe. Comments included, “I am very pleased with the service”, “No complaints”, “Excellent service” and “I haven’t had any cause to complain.”

Staff treated people respectfully and asked people how they wanted their care and support to be provided. People and their relatives spoke positively about staff, commenting, “They are wonderful”, “I am very happy with all the staff”, “They are all very kind to me” and “They are all brilliant.”

People had a team of regular, reliable staff, they had agreed the times of their visits and were kept informed of any changes. No one reported ever having had any missed visits. People told us, “Staff always turn up”, “If staff are running late they ring and let us know”, “I have regular carers” and “I am very happy as I have the same carer five days a week.”

Staff were knowledgeable about the people they cared for and knew how to recognise if people’s needs changed. Staff were aware of people’s preferences and interests, as well as their health and support needs, which enabled them to provide a personalised service. Staff were appropriately trained to support people with their medicines when this was needed.

People had a care plan that provided staff with direction and guidance about how to meet people’s individual needs and wishes. These care plans were regularly reviewed and any changes in people’s needs were communicated to staff. Assessments were carried out to identify any risks to the person using the service and to the staff supporting them. This included any environmental risks in people’s homes and any risks in relation to the care and support needs of the person.

Staff were recruited safely, which meant they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. All were clear about how to report any concerns and were confident that any allegations made would be fully investigated to help ensure people were protected. Staff received appropriate training and supervision. New staff received an induction, which was soon to incorporate the care certificate. There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff available to meet the needs of people who used the service.

The service was acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005(MCA). Management and staff understood how to ensure people who did not have the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves had their legal rights protected.

There was a positive culture within the staff team and staff spoke passionately about their work. Staff were complimentary about the management team and how they were supported to carry out their work. The registered and deputy managers were clearly committed to providing a good service for people. Comments from staff included, “I enjoy working for The Old Roselyon”, “They are very well organised” and “You can speak with [Registered manager’s nam

We spoke with six people who used the service and one relative. They told us that everything was absolutely fine. One person said, “The carers are always on time and I usually get the same carers, this is good for continuity”, “The carers are never rushed”, ”They inform me of any changes to my plan of care”. Another person said, “I receive good care and I am kept informed”.

One person told us they were very satisfied with the care delivered but recently there had been a breakdown in communication. A previously planned visit had been withdrawn as deemed unnecessary, yet the relative claimed she had not been informed by either the agency or other professionals involved in making the decision.

Peoples’ consent to care had been obtained and documented. We found peoples’ views and experiences had been taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected and people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Old Roselyon Domiciliary Care Agency supported people who used the services or others acting on their behalf, to make comments and complaints.

The agency kept accurate and personalised care and support records secure and confidential for each person who used the service.

The Old Roselyon Domiciliary Care Agency is a community service that provides care and support to adults of all ages, in their own homes. The service provides help with people’s personal care needs in Par, Fowey, St Austell and surrounding areas. This includes people with physical disabilities and dementia care needs. The service mainly provides personal care for people in short visits at key times of the day to help people get up in the morning, go to bed at night and support with meals.

At the time of our inspection 45 people were receiving a personal care service. These services were funded either privately or through Cornwall Council.

There was a registered manager in post who was responsible for the day-to-day running of the service. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We carried out this announced inspection on 20 and 21 May 2015. We told the provider five days before that we would be coming. This was to ensure the registered manager and key staff were available when we visited the agency’s office. It also meant we could arrange to visit some people in their own homes to hear about their experiences of the service. The service was last inspected in October 2013 and was found to be meeting the regulations.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe using the service and told us, “I am very satisfied with the service” and “very very good”.

Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. All were clear about how to report any concerns and were confident that any allegations made would be fully investigated to help ensure people were protected.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet the needs of people who used the service. Staff were matched to the people they supported according to the interests and the needs of the person. The service was flexible and responded to people’s changing needs.

People were supported to take their medicines by staff who had been appropriately trained. People received care from staff who knew them well, and had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs. People and their relatives spoke well of staff, comments included, “All the staff I have know what I need” and “they [staff] are wonderful, I can’t fault them”.

Staff were knowledgeable about the people they cared for and knew how to recognise if people’s needs changed. Staff were aware of people’s preferences and interests, as well as their health and support needs, which enabled them to provide a personalised service. Staff were kind and compassionate and treated people with dignity and respect.

The management had a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to make sure people who did not have the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves had their legal rights protected.

There was a positive culture in the service, the management team provided strong leadership and led by example. Most staff had worked for the service for many years and they were motivated and clearly passionate about making a difference to people’s lives. Staff told us, “I enjoy the job”, “people get a good service”, “I wouldn’t want to work for anyone else” and “I have regular work so I know the people I go to well”.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed.