The inspection was undertaken by one inspector. We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? We spoke with five people who used the service, relatives of two people who used the service, the care manager and six members of staff.Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, 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 our full report.
Is the service safe?
We spoke to five people who used the service and relatives of a further two people. All of these people confirmed that they felt safe when being supported by care staff.
People told us that care staff knew how to care for them. We spoke with care staff and looked at records. We saw that care was delivered in a way which kept people safe.
We saw and staff confirmed there were enough gloves and aprons for these to be available for staff when supporting people with their personal care. People told us that these were always used. We saw that staff had access to policies and procedures about preventing the spread of infection. One person told us, 'They always wear gloves.'
The provider had a robust recruitment process to ensure that people were cared for by staff who had the training, experience and knowledge to support vulnerable people.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs had been reviewed with them. There was appropriate information in care plans in people's homes about the support they needed and how they wanted to be supported. A person who used the service told us, 'They [Care staff] are very good. I would be lost without them.'
Where necessary, risk assessments had been undertaken and were used to help staff provide appropriate, safe and consistent support to people who used the service. Care plans contained information and guidance about people's specific conditions to enable care staff to meet the individual needs of the people who used the service.
People who used the service were asked to comment on the service provided, this included questions about the support they received.
Is the service caring?
All the people we spoke to confirmed that staff were kind to them. A person who used the service told us, 'The staff are very friendly, they are always asking how you're doing.'
When speaking with staff it was clear that they genuinely cared and knew about the people they were supporting. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
People were supported to comment on the care they received at regular meetings. People told us that the provider made them feel comfortable to raise concerns. We saw that the provider responded appropriately to concerns so that the service could improve.
The provider had a complaints policy which showed people how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. The manager was aware of the provider's policy and knew how to respond to concerns. We saw evidence that the provider had taken action when complaints were raised.
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care in a coherent way. People were supported to attend doctors, dentists and other health appointments when needed. The provider supported people to seek the opinions of other health providers in order to gain further information about specific conditions. A community nurse told us, 'The staff seem to know what they are doing. I have no concerns about how people are looked after here.'
Is the service well-led?
The provider regularly sought the views of the people who used the service. We saw evidence that they had introduced changes to how people were supported in response to comments received.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. We saw that there were meetings with staff to discuss quality issues and this helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.
There was evidence that the provider had ensured that learning from incidents or accidents took place and appropriate changes were introduced or implemented to keep the people safe from harm.
The service had a quality assurance system and records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better were addressed. These included spot checks to assess the quality of the care being delivered in people's homes and reviewing people's care records.