This inspection was carried out on 30 December 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 24 hours’ notice because the location provides a service to people in their own homes; we needed to be sure that members of the management team or senior staff would be available to speak with us. At our last inspection in September 2013, the service was meeting all of the regulations we checked.

The service specialises in providing care for people recently discharged from hospital with rehabilitation potential. Care is commissioned by Kensington and Chelsea health and social care services. 53 people were using the service at the time of our inspection although they were not all receiving support with personal care. Staff that went into people's homes to support them were known as 'community independence assistants’(CIAs).

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.

We received positive feedback from people using the service who felt they were supported to regain their independence and that staff had the skills and training to help them achieve their goals.

People were assessed prior to using the service and care records were comprehensive and person-centred, providing staff with the information they needed about people to care for them effectively. Risk assessments had been carried out to address each area of risk to individuals.

Each person had an independence plan which identified the areas that people needed support with. A goal setting document was also used to identify SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timed) goals that people could work towards to improve their independence with regards to their daily living skills. Support typically lasted six weeks or ended when people achieved their goals.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. People’s capacity to make decisions about their care and support had been assessed and people were encouraged to maintain as much independence as they were able and to make decisions for themselves.

Staff recruitment procedures were in place and were being followed to ensure suitable staff were employed by the service. The service employed enough staff to ensure people’s needs were being met.

Staff understood safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures and were clear about the process to follow when reporting concerns.

Staff received training in medicines management and people received their medicines safely.

Staff knew how to respond to medical emergencies or significant changes in a person’s health and systems were in place to manage emergencies and to provide continuity of care to people.

Staff received regular supervision and yearly appraisals during which they were able to discuss any concerns, identify any training needs and set any personal development objectives for the year.

Feedback was sought from people during and at the end of their support as part of the provider's quality assurance monitoring.

Complaints procedures were in place and people said they would feel able to raise any issues so they could be addressed.

The provider recognised the importance of monitoring and improving the service.

People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We looked at people's files and saw goals were clearly outlined and risks assessed. We spoke with five people and looked at feedback about the service from people. Generally people were very pleased with the service. They described it staff as "professional" and "wonderful".

Consent was obtained appropriately. People were asked for their consent before staff delivered any care or treatment. We saw signed consent forms on people's records.

There was a safeguarding policy in place that outlined what abuse was and how it should be reported. A log of all safeguarding incidents were kept in the team as well as being logged centrally with the safeguarding team. The provider responded appropriately to any allegation of abuse.

Staff received appropriate professional development. Staff received an induction in line with the organisation's policy and appropriate training was provided. Staff felt well supported to carry out their duties, they received supervision every 4-6 weeks. Topics covered included staff development and training needs and workloads.

There were measures in place to assess the quality of the service. Managers carried out spot checks to audit staff and quality checks were conducted in people's homes. Complaints were dealt with in line the organisation's policy.