We found that the agency had carried out a review of how people's needs were assessed and planned for and the way that care was delivered. They had implemented new care planning systems and were able to show that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.
During this inspection we met with three people who used the service and spoke to a relative of one person who used the service. People told us that care workers were kind and helpful. One person told us, "We have a good relationship with the care workers, they text us if they are likely to be delayed." Another person told us "I am very happy with my carer. I have always been a busy person and she helps me to keep busy".
During our inspection in March 2013 we found that people's care and treatment was not always assessed, planned and delivered in a way that would ensure their safety and welfare. This inspection found that they had not addressed these issues and we found further serious shortfalls.
We also found shortfalls in the agency's systems for protecting vulnerable adults from abuse, management of medicines and recruitment of staff. The agency's quality assurance systems were not being used effectively which meant they had not identified for themselves the issues that we found during this inspection. We also found shortfalls in the record keeping of the service.
People we spoke with all told us that care workers were polite and treated them with respect. One person said of the care workers "They are very good and kind".
We found that people had been involved in the initial assessments and had been given copies of their care plans and other important information.
We looked at people's care plans. We found that people did not always experience care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. This was because a number of care needs and risks had not been identified, assessed and planned for.
People who use 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.
We visited the office and spoke to one relative of a person who used the service. This relative told us that they were happy with the care the agency provided to their relative and they had no concerns.
We found that Aspect Domiciliary Care agency had made improvements and had met all the outstanding improvement and compliance actions made at our last visit.
The agency had improved procedures in place to promote the safe administration of medicines and record keeping. Staff recruitment and induction procedures had also improved, to ensure that people receiving care from the agency were not placed at risk of harm or abuse.
All of the six people we visited needed some support with their medicines or administration of creams. They told us that care workers helped them to apply creams or assist them with taking their medication.
People told us that they felt the care workers were experienced and knew what they were doing. They also said that they felt safe with them. The main concern people raised with us was the lateness of visits and they felt that the workers had too many visits / too far to travel in the time they were given. People said that the agency had never missed a visit and although they might have had to wait a long time for another care worker to turn up, if the allocated one didn't arrive, a member of staff always arrived to support them, even if it was the registered manager themselves.
All the people we spoke with told us that they didn't receive staff rotas so were unaware in advance of which care workers would be visiting. Nearly all people said that this could be improved by informing them of the names of staff that were allocated to them. They said that they also preferred receiving the same carers as this provided continuity of care and staff became familiar with their needs and preferences.