About the service: UK Care Team Limited is a domiciliary care service that was providing personal care to 42 people aged between 18 and 65 and over at the time of the inspection.

People’s experience of using this service:

¿People continued to receive good safe care and support and had developed positive relationships with staff.

¿The staff were friendly, passionate about their work and caring; they treated people with respect, kindness, dignity and compassion.

¿People had detailed personalised plans of care in place to enable staff to provide consistent care and support in line with people’s personal preferences.

¿Staff knew their responsibilities as defined by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005). The provider was aware of how to make referrals if people lacked capacity to consent to aspects of their care and support and were being deprived of their liberty.

¿People were protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely.

¿Staff were appropriately recruited and there were enough staff to provide care and support to people to meet their needs.

¿ Staff had access to the support, supervision and training that they required to work effectively in their roles.

¿People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition.

¿Information was provided to people in an accessible format to enable them to make decisions about their care and support.

¿People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and the provider had implemented effective systems to manage any complaints received.

¿The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The registered manager was approachable, understood the needs of people, and listened to staff and relatives.

¿There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and drive improvements.

More information is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 29 July 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the service had remained overall good.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

This inspection took place on 6 July 2016 and was announced. We returned on the 7 July 2016 to complete the inspection. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be at the office.

UK Care Team Ltd is a domiciliary care service providing care and support to people living in their own homes. The office is based in the city of Leicester and the service currently provides care and support to people living in Leicester. At the time of our inspection there were 23 people using the service. People’s packages of care varied dependent upon their needs. The provider employed 26 staff.

A registered manager was 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.

People told us they felt safe with the care staff who supported them and they were happy with the service provided. Staff were trained and understood their responsibility in protecting people from the risk of harm.

Potential risk to people’s health had been assessed and measures were in place to manage these risk. People were involved in the development of their care plans and staff had clear information to help keep people safe. People were supported by trained staff to take their medicines.

Staff were recruited in accordance with the provider’s recruitment procedures. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. People were supported by a team of staff with the appropriate knowledge and skills, and matched with any known requirements such as individual preferences, cultural or diverse needs and where the person’s first language was not English. This promoted continuity of care and had a consistent approach in the delivery of care.

People were involved in making decisions about their care needs and in the development of their care plan. Care staff sought consent before they provided support and staff respected people’s choices and decisions. Records showed that the provider followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and ensured that people consented to their care and support.

Staff supported some people, where required with their meals and drinks. This included preparation of meals to meet people’s cultural dietary needs. Records showed people were supported to maintain their health and accessed medical care when required.

People told us that they were happy with the support they received and the care staff. People were complimentary about the staff and found them to be kind and caring and had developed positive relationships with them.

People’s privacy and dignity was maintained, their choice of lifestyle was respected and their independence was promoted. Staff were aware of people’s cultural needs and used a form of address which was seen to be respectful of elders within the Asian community.

People’s needs were met by reliable staff who knew how to support people. Staff were responsive and provided care that was tailored to people’s individual requirements. The management team were proactive and took account of cultural needs and were flexible to ensure people received the care they needed at times that suited them, which could vary at different times of the year.

People’s views about the service were sought regularly. There was a complaints procedure and people knew how to use it. People were confident that any concerns raised would be responded listened to and addressed.

The provider had an effective system in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. The views and opinions of people who used the service and staff were sought, which included meetings, completion of a range of surveys and internal audits. The management team