Our current view of the service
Updated
15 August 2025
Date of assessment: 29 August 2025 – 14 October 2025.
The reason for this assessment was due to concerns we received about the service.
The quality of the service has declined since our previous inspection. The provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to recruitment procedures and the governance of the service. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
Effective quality assurance processes were not in place to support continuous learning. Omissions were found in some daily monitoring charts, care plans and risk assessments. However, the provider and new manager were responsive to feedback. They were committed to learning from the findings of the assessment and from their own recent reviews of the quality of the service.
The provider did not have a fully robust recruitment process in place to ensure that all required information about potential employees was obtained.
Staff were not always provided with full information about people’s care and treatment, including information provided by other professionals. Risk assessments were not always person-centred. We found no impact and the service was in the process of reviewing and updating all care plans and risk assessments.
Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities. Environmental risk assessments were completed. The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. Medicines were generally managed safely, however, time critical medicines were not always administered due to the timings of care calls.
Staff had received up to date training in best practice methods of support and had their competencies checked. The provider valued diversity within the workforce and staff development. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.
People's experience of the service
Updated
15 August 2025
People told us the initial assessment process ran smoothly. People told us they were generally involved in their care plans and were able to access these via an app they were able to download to their phones. The provider actively advocated for people who needed longer support calls or additional social support calls to improve the quality of their care and the quality of their lives.
There were omissions in people’s support plans and daily charts. We found no evidence of impact and the provider addressed this following our feedback.
Staff always sought consent from people before carrying out any task and this was clearly recorded. One person told us, “Staff always ask for permission before providing care.”
People were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion and staff respected their privacy and dignity. People were treated as individuals and staff recognised people’s strengths and abilities. People were given choice on a daily basis and staff promoted people’s independence. People were contacted in a timely manner if there were any issues with the timing of their care call.
Some people spoke about a language barrier impacting the care provided, and an inconsistent staff team. One person told us, “They do their best but it's a language barrier and sometimes they just don't understand how to care.” Another person told us, “I get someone different every day. The last year – so many different staff and it’s got worse.”
We received mixed feedback from people about whether they felt the care received was person-centred. People were given different ways to provide feedback, raise ideas and complaints. However, we received mixed feedback from people as to whether they felt listened to. People did not always have planned future outcomes incorporated into their support plans. The new management team had put in place a comprehensive action plan to address the issues identified.