The inspection took place on 27 July 2016 and 01 August 2016 and both days were announced. We had previously carried out an inspection in May 2014, where we found the registered provider was meeting all the regulations we inspected.

Valeo Domiciliary Care Service provides personal care to people living in supported living accommodation at several locations within Leeds. It provides the service up to 24 hours a day, seven days a week. At the time of inspection 27 people were receiving a personal care service.

A registered manager was in post and present for the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and like registered providers; they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a 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. We saw policies and practices that ensured people’s privacy and dignity were respected. Staff spoke highly of the registered manager and felt well supported by them.

Robust recruitment processes were in place which ensured staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to protect vulnerable adults. They told us they had attended safeguarding training and were aware of the policies in place regarding reporting concerns.

We saw staff had been trained in the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and they had a good understanding of the principles of the Act. The registered manager had a training matrix which identified all the training needs for staff.

People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs. People engaged in a range of activities, both in-house and in the community. We observed interactions between staff and people were friendly and staff knew how to respect people’s privacy and dignity.

People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs.

Appropriate arrangements were in place to manage the medicines of the people who used the service.

The registered manager had effective systems in place to monitor the overall quality of service delivery and support was provided to the service leads at the locations.

People we spoke with were supported by members of staff to raise any complaints or concerns if they wished.

The inspection was carried out by an individual inspector. We looked at five specific questions; Was the service safe? Was the service effective? Was the service caring? Was the service responsive? Was the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Was the service safe?

We spoke with three people who used the service. They all told us they were happy with the care and support they received. One person told us, “It’s brilliant here, staff help out when it’s needed”. Another told us “It’s really good, staff are friendly”.

We saw evidence that staff received regular training in safeguarding vulnerable adults. This meant they were able to protect people from the risk of harm. We saw that the service had an up to date Safeguarding Policy. Staff had regular training on a variety of subjects and the staff we spoke with told us they felt the training was important as it helped them keep their skills and knowledge up to date. All staff received regular supervision and they felt that supervision was a good source of support for them. This meant that people were cared for by staff who were trained and supported by the service.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. There were policies and procedures in place for the service to manage any concerns about staff’s performance.

Was the service effective?

People had an assessment of their care needs prior to their admission into the service. People were gradually introduced into their accommodation. This gave them time to get to know other people sharing the tenancy. Once settled people would have a further assessment and care records would be developed. The resulting care records were then reviewed at regular intervals. This ensured that people were having their needs assessed on a regular basis. The service had a key working system in place and the people we spoke with were able to tell us who their key worker was.

Was the service caring?

We spoke with four members of the staff team. They all told us they enjoyed working for the service. One staff member told us “I enjoy working with people and I like to see people moving on”. Another staff member told us “People’s care records are based on what they want, they are very involved in their care and support”.

Relatives were actively involved in people’s care records and reviews. The service sought the views of relatives through their annual service review.

Was the service responsive?

The manager told us that monthly meetings took place and people were encouraged to attend. We looked at the minutes from some of the meetings. They covered a variety of areas such a house keeping and community activities. People told us “Staff listen to what we have to say and I have seen things change after we have told staff”.

The service had an up to date complaints policy and procedure that people could use if they needed to make a complaint. The service had not received any complaints over the past year. All the people we spoke with told us they knew what to do if they had any concerns about the way they were treated.

Was the service well led?

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and felt able to talk to the manager if they had any concerns.

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The service had a quality assurance system, records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly.

During this visit we spoke with three people who used the service, spoke with four staff members and looked at five people’s case records.

Staff we spoke with were clear about their roles in relation to consent and promoting people’s rights. One member of staff told us, “We make sure people are involved in everything we do. We don’t do anything without people’s agreement and involvement.”

People we spoke with who used the service confirmed they were involved in their care. One person told us, “I have a copy of my plan in my room. I sit down with my key worker and we go through it together.” People told us that they were happy with the care they received from staff.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

Staff had the necessary skills and training required to deliver the care and support people needed.

The service had a system in place to monitor and audit the service provided.