During an assessment under our new approach
About the service
The service is a homecare service. At the time of the assessment, 4 people were receiving the regulated activity of personal care.
Who the service is for
This service provides care and support to adults aged 18 and over, including younger adults, older people, people living with dementia, and people with physical disabilities, who live in their own homes.
Key findings
We carried out this assessment from 04 August to 10 August 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
People were supported by caring and compassionate staff who knew them well and communicated with them in ways that met their individual preferences. Staff demonstrated a strong commitment to promoting people’s dignity, respecting their privacy and encouraging independence. One staff member told us, “It’s important to me that when I finish a visit with a person that they are happy with what I have done and the care I have provided. We have really good relationships with the people we support.” People were encouraged to make choices about their care and were listened to and supported by staff to be as active as possible, so they retained their skills and mobility. This was reflected in staff practice, with one staff member explaining, “I will always give [the person] the sponge as they will do a lot of their personal care themselves, I just support them to do the areas they cannot reach.” These examples demonstrated a person-centred culture where people were treated with kindness, respect and compassion, and supported to remain as independent as possible.
People’s needs were assessed before they began receiving support, and staff understood how to meet those needs and respond to changes in their wellbeing. People’s care needs were met, and staff demonstrated a person-centred approach to supporting health and wellbeing. For example, one staff member described how they encouraged a person with a catheter to maintain their fluid intake by leaving friendly reminders and monitoring for signs of dehydration, escalating concerns to healthcare professionals when required. Staff worked with people to achieve positive outcomes. People were supported to make their own decisions and choices, with staff routinely seeking consent before providing care and support. Staff and management worked in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, ensuring people retained choice, control and freedom over their lives. All people using the service had capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment. There was no evidence of unlawful or unnecessary restrictions being placed on people. The service was not administering medicines at the time of the assessment, but staff were able to clearly describe the processes they would follow if support with medicines was required, including maintaining accurate Medication Administration Records (MARs) and observing people taking their medicines to ensure they were administered safely.
Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the people they supported and what was important to them. Initial assessments captured key information about people’s backgrounds, identities and support needs, including their cultural, religious and communication preferences. Staff knew people well and were able to provide personalised support that reflected their needs and wishes. Systems were in place to manage any concerns and to address them promptly. Staff took action to ensure people were treated fairly and respected their unique needs. People were supported at their own pace, and relatives reported staff took the time needed to provide care without rushing. This was reflected in one staff member’s description of how they adapted support around a person’s preferences, “[The person] does not always like to get up when their visit is scheduled in the morning, and so we will do a bit and go away to support someone else before returning to complete the visit.” These examples demonstrated a flexible, person-centred approach that respected people’s choices and individual routines.
Leaders were described by staff as approachable and supportive, creating a positive and collaborative culture within the service. Systems and documentation were in place to support the oversight of care, including communication records and processes for monitoring concerns, sharing information and promoting people’s safety. The provider was able to describe how concerns were identified, tracked and reviewed until resolved, and how regular handovers supported effective communication across the staff team. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the people they supported, how to meet their individual needs, and their safeguarding responsibilities. Risk assessments were in place to guide the safe delivery of care and support people living in their own homes, and safe recruitment processes were followed. The provider also demonstrated a commitment to promoting equality of experience and outcomes for people and engaged with provider network meetings to share learning and further improve the quality of the service.
However, improvements were needed to ensure all aspects of the service were consistently maintained and embedded. Whilst no harm to people had occurred, staff practice did not always reflect safe risk management, particularly when supporting people following a fall, which could place people and others at risk of harm. Staff knowledge of current safeguarding referral processes and some training requirements was not always up to date, and training and supervision records were not consistently maintained. We also identified that a shared care plan was being used for a couple receiving support. Care plans should be individualised and maintained separately to ensure each person's needs, preferences and desired outcomes are clearly reflected. Governance arrangements had not always been effective, with some records, reviews and quality assurance activities not being completed or kept up to date. The provider had recognised these areas for improvement and gave assurances that action would be taken without delay, including reviewing staff practice, updating staff knowledge and records, reinstating regular reviews and quality assurance checks, and strengthening oversight to support continuous improvement.