- Homecare service
Rapid Care
Assessment report published 18 March 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 13 and 19 January 2026. The service is a care at home service providing support to people living in their own homes. At the time of our assessment, the service was supporting 82 people with the regulated activity ‘Personal Care’.
This was a focused assessment undertaken to follow up on the enforcement action we had taken.
We identified 2 continued breaches of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance.
Although there had been an improvement in the assessment and management of risks identified at the last assessment, such as catheter care, we found 6 out of 7 people’s care records reviewed either did not fully assess or clearly plan for how to mitigate some people’s risks. There were multiple areas where key risk assessments or detailed guidance in people’s care plans were missing or incomplete, including for safe use of bedrails, choking risks, skin integrity risks and risks associated with people’s health conditions. The provider had made some improvement in how some medicines were managed such as clearer administration protocols for prescribed creams, but further improvements were needed.
The provider had not always taken sufficient timely action to drive improvement in all areas of the service. Governance arrangements remained inconsistent and had not been fully effective in identifying or addressing ongoing risks.
The provider had worked with external consultants and introduced new audits; some actions had led to improvements, while other areas needed further work to ensure robust and effective oversight. During the assessment, we found that new medicines audits failed to identify some of the issues we found at this assessment such as 2 people who did not have medicine administration records for their medicines.
Leaders were receptive to feedback and demonstrated a willingness to learn and improve. Action was taken promptly during the assessment to begin to address the issues found. The nominated individual also changed during the assessment, and they implemented further changes to strengthen governance and oversight at the service. These improvements were still new and not yet embedded.
However, feedback from people and relatives about the service continued to be positive. People told us they felt safe, and staff knew how to safeguard people. There were systems and processes in place to support staff to work in partnership with other relevant professionals to meet people’s needs. Staff knew people well and spoke confidently about their roles and responsibilities.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
People's experience of this service
People and relatives consistently told us they felt safe with staff. People and relatives said they were involved in developing care plans and that staff responded when people’s needs changed, including contacting GPs or district nurses when required. Relatives of people with more complex health needs felt staff had the skills to support them safely, particularly in relation to catheter care. People’s end‑of‑life care was described as compassionate and supportive, contributing to a sense of coordinated, holistic care.
People and relatives were confident in the support staff delivered and described staff as, “Kind”, “Caring” and “Respectful”. People felt staff knew them well and delivered person-centred care in ways that upheld dignity and promoted comfort. Comments included “The carers are all so kind, caring and very understanding.” and “This is the best service I have used; it’s all about me, which it should be.”
Some people identified minor areas where they felt the service could be strengthened. For example, some people and relatives told us that communication with office staff and the manager could be inconsistent, and some said they did not always know which carers would be visiting. Other people were positive. A person commented, “I have the same carers and they are regular, all of them being very good.”
Most people told us staff arrived within the expected time window and informed them if delays occurred. However, several people said they would like more consistent communication about which carers were attending and when, and some said they were not always informed when carers were running late.
Overall, people and relatives were positive about the care and support provided. A person said, “What can I say, I couldn’t ask for anymore. From the manager, office staff and all my carers it makes my care complete. I receive an excellent service."