Mobile Care Services Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Respectful language was used by staff in the daily notes they completed about people’s care calls. Care plans were considerate of people’s needs and wishes. For example, 1 person supported by staff was reluctant to wash and their care plan directed staff to “encourage” this person to have a shower on specific days to create a routine for them.

Staff demonstrated the importance of maintaining people’s privacy and dignity. One staff member told us, “This morning I was just supporting [Name] with personal care and an ambulance arrived for another family member. I went outside to ask the paramedics not to come into the lounge (as they did not need to access this area of the house) as I was doing personal care.” A relative told us, “Staff are very conscious of protecting [Name]’s dignity.”

One person told us, “They let me chat away, they don’t rush me.” People and relatives described examples to us of how staff cared for them with kindness.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Most staff worked covering a specific geographical area and supported the same people. This enabled staff to get to know people well and they had developed good relationships with people. One staff member told us, “[Name] loves to talk about her family, it’s her reason to live.”

One person told us, “Staff know what I want and how I like it done.” A relative told us, “The care staff always speak politely and ask [Name] how he feels.” Another relative told us, “We now regard the staff as friends.”

Not all care plans documented whether people had been given choices about the gender of their care staff and protected characteristics were not always recorded in care plans. However, people and relatives told us they were asked about this and no concerns were raised to us.

The provider was aware where improvements were needed in care plans and recording specific information and this is further reported on in the well led section of this report.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Where people had a learning disability, staff understood the importance of promoting independence. For example, 1 person wished to be supported to write a grocery shopping list and care notes demonstrated this was done with the person.

Staff referred to an electronic ‘App’ on their mobile phone for a list of care tasks to be undertaken on people’s care calls. However, staff demonstrated they had got to know people as individuals and knew how to promote people’s independence, depending on levels of ability. Despite the ‘App’ being ‘task orientated’, care staff understood their role in encouraging independence and giving people choice and control.

The manager demonstrated she took account of people’s strengths when initial care assessments were undertaken and explained to us the importance of maintaining people’s own skills. Where concerns had been raised by people with the manager where, for example, a staff member had not given choices to a person, these had been addressed with the staff.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about whether they felt listened to and whether their needs were responded to. Some feedback included comments that office staff required “better people skills” and that promises had been made for a call back from a manager, but this had not happened. One person had raised a specific issue related to a staff member and requested the staff member did not return to them but were told the incident did not justify the request. The manager shared with us that there had been a challenging time during 2025 but hoped the current office staff handled people’s calls professionally.

During our time at the provider’s office, we spent time with office staff handling incoming phone calls. We observed staff to be courteous to callers, listen to issues being raised and resolve those in a timely way. Staff demonstrated they knew people well, their geographical locations in which they worked and how to resolve issues around which staff were available to carry out care calls.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Mobile Care Services Limited has been going through a period of transition and change since the previous owner had sold the business to the new owner during 2025. Other changes had also taken place during 2025 and into 2026 which had impacted on the staff wellbeing. These included voluntary redundancies and non-voluntary redundancies and some staff being TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment rights) to a different provider due to changes in some people’s care package provision. During our inspection visit, some staff were visibly upset. One staff member told us, “I am relieved to be going, this business is no longer the one I have worked for over many years.” Anotherstaff member told us, “There have been too many changes too quickly, it has been too much.”

Some office and care staff told us they felt there had been a lack of support from the new provider. For example, a number of staff told us a new computer system had been implemented but minimal training had been given. Most staff felt they did not yet have the skills needed to navigate the IT system and this impacted on their abilities to deliver person-centred care. For example, 1 staff member told us, “I have no idea where to find anything, what forms are available or not, I don’t know.” Equally not all care staff knew how they could use the new system for effective communication and felt this was impacting on the care delivered to people.

Care staff were very positive about their team leader support. One staff member told us, “It's been a very nice experience working in Mobile Care Services. I never had any issues regarding any calls, customer, any colleagues and best thing is flexibility, everything is well managed by my team manager, and she always responds to queries.” This meant at a care team level staff felt their wellbeing was supported, however we received less positive feedback in relation to the new provider support for staff wellbeing.