- Homecare service
CFT Care Limited
Assessment report published 17 June 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 18 March 2026 to 16 April 2026.
This service provides personal care and support to people living in a range of supported living schemes. This includes both shared and single accommodation. They can provide a service to people with a learning disability and autistic people, people who require support with their mental health needs and people with physical and sensory needs. At the time of the inspection, 59 people were in receipt of the regulated activity of personal care.
We carried out this inspection following a review of the information we held about the service. This was a comprehensive inspection covering all key questions and quality statements. 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 the provider was not always delivering care in line with these principles.
At the last inspection, this service was rated good. At this inspection we found improvements were required. The provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to safe care and treatment, consent to care, person-centred care and good governance.
The provider did not have effective governance processes in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. Concerns were not always promptly identified and addressed.
Risks to people’s safety were not always assessed appropriately. Staff did not always have the right skills, qualifications and experience to support people safely. People did not always receive person-centred care which promoted their independence and enabled them to lead full and active lives. People’s capacity to make decisions and give consent was not always effectively assessed and documented.
People and those important to them did not always feel listened to. Managers had not always ensured staff received training and regular supervisions and appraisals to maintain high-quality care. People’s care was not consistently dignified and respectful. The provider did not work with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services.
However, we found people were involved in the initial assessments of their needs. The provider ensured information was available in formats people could understand and worked to eliminate discrimination. The provider valued diversity in their workforce.
At the time of the inspection, the provider had recognised areas where improvements were required and had implemented a service development plan. A recent management restructure had taken place to promote clearer responsibilities and accountability. The management team were able to demonstrate how they were increasing contact with people, relatives and staff to improve opportunities for feedback. There were also planned improvements to the care planning and recording system. However, observations, feedback from people, relatives, staff and professionals and documentation reviewed identified recurring concerns with communication and the consistency of people’s care and support.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this inspection.
People's experience of this service
During the inspection, we asked people and their relatives for feedback. Where appropriate we visited people in their homes to speak with them directly and to observe their care. Not everyone wanted us to visit and some people were not able to tell us about their experiences of care. We spoke to people’s relatives to support us in understanding people’s experiences.
People and those important to them did not always feel consulted and involved in their care. They told us managers were not always easy to contact. Comments included, “I don’t think my views are taken into account”, “When I raised concerns, nothing happened”, “I don’t see management much” and “There have been lots of issues, but nothing is resolved. They [management] are poor at communicating.”
We received mixed feedback about how well staff communicated with people and understood their needs. One relative told us, “Interaction with staff is excellent, [person’s] level of communication continues to improve”. However, another relative said, “Carers don’t have the right training and skills. I wonder whether staff are recognising when things are escalating and taking action quickly enough. If they had a different approach, things could have been better.”
We also received mixed feedback about how well people were supported to live healthily. One relative told us, “[Person’s] diet is good, they have fresh food”. However, other relatives said, “[Person’s] health has deteriorated in this setting”, “[Person] should be supported to make the right choices” and “There is meant to be a meal planner, it’s not used”.
We received generally positive comments about the supportive relationships people had established with their regular staff teams. Comments included, “Staff are amazing”, “[Person] is really happy and loves all the carers”, “Core staff are very good.” However, where people received support from unfamiliar staff, relatives raised concerns. Comments included, “Agency staff don’t know [person]”, “Sadly staff didn’t know it was [person’s] birthday. There were no birthday treats” and “A couple of the carers do not have the right skills, but they are still working with [person] now.”
We received mixed feedback about whether people and their relatives felt the service was well managed. Comments included, “I have a lack of confidence in management”, “Historically they have been good, but they are failing in these last few weeks” and “Nobody takes responsibility. It feels like it’s not well run.”