There were four people using the service. We spoke with one person, two people's relatives and the provider. We also spoke with two of the care staff and looked at all of the people's care records. Other records viewed included staff personnel records and some of the service's policies and procedures. During our inspection and during analysis of our inspection findings we considered the questions we always ask, is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led?
This is a summary of what we found;
Is the service safe?
When talking to the staff and the provider we found that they were knowledgeable of the needs of the people who used the service. However, people's assessments and care plans were not detailed and did not always reflect the needs of the people.
Staffing levels were adequate to support the current number of people supported by the service.
We saw that risk assessments had been completed, but were not detailed enough to ensure that risks associated with people's care and support were minimised. This meant that we could not be confident that people would be protected from risks involved with their care.
Is the service effective?
People told us that they were happy with the service and that their needs were met. One person said, "I'm happy, I can't grumble." Another person said, "The service is excellent."
People told us that the service was flexible, even at short notice, one person said, '. they really go that extra mile.'
Is the service caring?
People told us that staff listened to them and acted on any request or concern. One person said, "The staff are very kindly and friendly." Another person said, "They (care workers) do so much for me, I couldn't do without them now."
Is the service responsive?
People told us that they knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy and were confident that it would be dealt with. One person said, "I have no complaints." Another person said, "I've got a book here (at their home) about how to complain, but don't need to."
Is the service well-led?
The provider, having gained many years experience of working with people as a carer, opened a new domiciliary care agency. However, they did not have management experience or qualifications. They employed an experienced and qualified manager to take control of the day to day running of the service and continued to work in the service as a carer. When, after a few months, the provider realised that the service was not being run effectively, they took action to rectify the matter.
The provider facilitated our inspection, the registered manager was no longer working at the service at the time of our inspection. Once an application is received to cancel their registration they will be removed from our records.
There is no evidence that the people who used the service had been poorly supported on a day to day basis, they told us that the staff who supported them were caring, helpful and met their needs.
However, the service had not been well-lead by the registered manager who worked unsupervised by the provider. There was no effective quality assurance systems in place, there was no training organised for staff. We did not have confidence that the proper safeguarding checks had been carried out on staff.
The provider's quality assurance systems were not robust enough to identify what the manager was doing and the shortfalls. They had not acted promptly to protect the safety of the people they supported. However, at the time of our inspection, the provider had started to take corrective action.