We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask; ' Is the service safe?
' Is the service effective?
' Is the service caring?
' Is the service responsive?
' Is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found.
Is the service safe?
People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. People we spoke with told us they felt safe with the staff. Staff demonstrated they had a good understanding of what constituted abuse and of their responsibilities to report any concerns.
Assessments of any potential risks, to both people who received a service and to staff, had been carried out and guidance put in place to reduce the risks. The provider had a robust recruitment procedure, which meant that only staff who were suitable to work with vulnerable people were employed. There were enough staff employed to ensure that people received the care they needed.
Is the service effective?
People we spoke with were very satisfied with the service they received. One person told us, 'They've been marvellous. I don't think I could wish for better.' A relative said, 'They're wonderful. I couldn't do without them.'
People's needs, and their preferences for the way staff delivered their care, were detailed in their care plans. People told us that the staff did what they wanted them to.
Is the service caring?
People we spoke with described the staff as 'wonderful', 'fantastic' and 'like friends.' One relative said, 'They're always cheerful, they cheer me up and I'm comfortable with them.'
One person told us that the managers would do anything for them, even visiting out of normal working hours when there had been an emergency.
Is the service responsive?
People we spoke with told us that staff would do whatever they asked them to. They confirmed that staff had never missed a call and were rarely late.
Staff wrote notes at each visit, detailing the time they arrived and left and the tasks they had carried out so that there was a clear record of the care people received. Staff also wrote other information, such as if the person was not feeling well, and what they had done about it. Care plans were reviewed at least every six months to ensure that care met people's changing needs.
Is the service well-led?
St Neots ' Cambridgeshire was a small domiciliary care agency with a total of seven staff providing a service to 12 people. There were two managers, Karen and Sarah Hill, with Karen as the registered manager. Everyone we spoke with (people who received a service, their relatives and the staff) told us how good the managers were. One staff member said, 'I'm really happy at this agency, they can't do enough for you'they're very supportive.' Another staff member told us, 'The agency is brilliant, absolutely brilliant, it's the best place I've ever worked. Karen and Sarah are so helpful and really nice.'
An effective quality assurance system was in place so that the managers were able to monitor the service that was provided. People were asked to complete a written questionnaire, and people who received a service, their relatives and the staff were encouraged to speak with the managers or staff about anything, including any issues that concerned them.
We found that the provider was compliant with the regulations in all the areas we assessed.