Apex Prime Care - Basingstoke

Updated 4 February 2026

Date of Assessment: 12 February to 04 March 2026. This assessment was prompted by a review of the information we held about the service. Apex Prime Care Basingstoke provides care and support to people living in their own home. The service provided care and support for adults with physical disabilities, sensory impairments, dementia, mental health conditions, learning disabilities and autism. Not everyone who used the service was receiving the regulated activities of personal care. At the time of our inspection, they were supporting 204 people with personal care. We reviewed all 33 quality statements across the five key questions.

The service supported some people with a learning disability. We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found that people were supported in accordance with this guidance.

During our assessment, we identified 3 breaches of legal regulations. We found concerns relating to person‑centred care, safe care and treatment and good governance (including records). People were not always supported in line with their personal preferences, particularly during personal care, which caused distress. People were not always involved in decisions about their care, including care plan reviews. Medicines were not always safe, people’s care records were not always comprehensive and risks were not always identified. Records relating to people’s risks were not always detailed or accurate enough to support staff to keep people safe including information held in people’s homes about managing fire risks. Quality monitoring systems required strengthening to ensure shortfalls would be identified and addressed promptly. Governance shortfalls resulted in breaches of regulations.

The provider did not ensure people received care from consistent staff, and people told us they did not always know who would be visiting them, which caused anxiety. Staff were mostly recruited safely and received training relevant to their roles. However, we found gaps in training for diabetes and end of life Staff did not always feel supported and had been left without a manager for a prolonged period. People told us they also felt let down by management. A new manager had recently been appointed, and a robust action plan had been developed to improve the service. Staff told us they treated people equally and without discrimination. Systems were in place for people to raise concerns or complaints, although some people were not aware of how to make a complaint or who to contact. Some people did not feel listened too.

We have asked the provider to submit an action plan setting out how they will address the concerns identified during this assessment.

Updated 4 February 2026

We spoke with people and relatives by telephone to gather feedback about the care they received. The service did not always place people at the centre of their care and support. Some people told us staffing required improvement because staff were inconsistent, and they did not always know who would be attending their calls.

Most people we spoke with were unhappy with the service and said they did not feel treated with dignity or respect. People told us communication needed to improve and described difficulties contacting the office. Several people said staff were not always caring, describing some staff as rude or unresponsive to their needs. However, people consistently said their regular staff were kind, helpful and provided good care.

Many people reported that male staff were sent to female service users to provide personal care, even when this had been discussed and a clear preference for female carers had been recorded. People also reported concerns about medicines management, including delayed doses, missed doses and occasions where medicines had run out. Relatives told us they were worried because errors had been reported several times but continued to occur. Poor visit timing meant some morning medicines were given at lunchtime, and the required spacing between doses was not always followed.

People said late calls disrupted their routines and led to missed outings and missed showers. They told us visit times had the greatest impact on the standard of care, resulting in rushed support, missed care tasks, incorrect medicines and situations where people had to guide staff on what to do. People also reported inconsistent use of PPE, with some staff wearing coats, beanie hats and backpacks while delivering care.

Overall, many people and relatives told us they were unhappy with the level of service and felt let down by the provider. They said carers were generally kind and polite, but office staff, when they were eventually able to reach someone, did not listen and did not appear to care.

People told us that until very recently, before the new manager came into post, they felt no one was listening and problems were not resolved. Some people said the new manager had given them hope that things may improve. They told us the manager had visited several people and was trying to address ongoing issues. While people felt this was a positive step, many believed the problems were extensive and would take time to resolve.