This inspection took place on 25 May 2018 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours' notice that we would be visiting their main office so that someone would be available to support us with the inspection process.

This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered with CQC in January 2017.

Uriel Care2U Ltd is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to adults of any age who need care due to physical disabilities, illness or those living with dementia. Not everyone using Uriel Care2U Ltd receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. The service offers domestic assistance services and personal care. At the time of this inspection the service was providing personal care services to twenty-three people. In addition, a night care service and a live – in care service was provided to two people. The majority of people used Uriel Care2U Ltd for reablement, a six-week service following a hospital stay and the others had a more long-term service.

There was a registered manager in post who was also a director of the company. 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.

The service had risk assessments in place which covered specific areas of risk for each person, such as falls, environmental and health risks. In two files there was no environmental risk assessment and there was no risk assessment in the file for risks associated with one person’s medical condition. The registered manager told us that these were in place in people’s homes.

The service had processes in place to ensure the safe administration of medicines. We found problems with one person’s medicines records which indicated that the provider’s systems to ensure medicines were managed safely were not consistently effective. The registered manager informed us after the inspection that they had taken appropriate action to ensure all medicines records were accurate, including more frequent spot checks on the records.

The provider had not consistently followed robust recruitment processes as two staff did not have references as evidence of satisfactory conduct in their previous jobs. Other checks such as proof of identity and criminal record checks had been carried out for all staff employed.

The service carried out an assessment with people to assess their needs before confirming that the service could meet the person’s needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Care plans detailed people’s needs but some were written on a format which included information which was not relevant to them. People had consented to their assessment and to the service sharing information about them with other relevant professionals but some people had not been asked for their written consent to being provided with care by the service. There was no record of consent to their care plan as they had not signed it.

Care workers had appropriate training and support to enable them to deliver their roles effectively. They told us they were happy working for this service and felt well supported by the registered manager.

Staff supported people who had nutritional and hydration requirements to ensure they ate and drank well and helped them to maintain their health.

People and relatives were happy with the care staff that supported them and thought care workers were caring and respectful of their pri