- Homecare service
Your Life (Newport)
Assessment report published 6 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Our view of the service About the service Your Life (Newport) is a Domiciliary care service providing support to people living in their own homes, within a large purpose-built shared building. Not everyone who used the service was receiving a regulated activity. Those that were, received the regulated activity of personal care, help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. At the time of our assessment, they were providing personal care to 5 people. Who the service is for Your Life (Newport) provides support to older people. Key findings We carried out this assessment from 11 to 18 September 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. People consistently told us they received safe, personalised care from regular staff who understood their needs and preferences. Team members built positive, trusting relationships and adapted their approach to suit individual’s circumstances. They were motivated in their roles and committed to ensuring people had a positive experience of receiving support. Where individuals were new to care services or initially reluctant to accept help, staff took a patient and sensitive approach, taking time to build trust and establish positive relationships. This helped promote dignity, independence and emotional wellbeing, while working towards achieving outcomes that were important to the person. The provider had effective systems to keep people safe, manage risks and respond when their needs changed. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding, risk management and medicines and worked closely with health and social care professionals to support people's health and wellbeing. There were effective contingency and business continuity arrangements which helped ensure support could continue safely during emergencies. Care was planned and delivered around each person's individual needs, preferences and goals. Care plans contained detailed information about people's health, communication needs and personal circumstances, including cultural and spiritual preferences. Staff worked alongside people, relatives and professionals to review and adapt support as circumstances changed. We saw positive examples of people being supported to maintain their independence, improve their health and continue living in their own homes for as long as possible. People were involved in decisions about their care and support and were encouraged to make choices about how they lived their lives. This was reflected in both the feedback received by CQC and feedback gathered by the provider through its quality assurance processes. Staff understood the importance of gaining consent and respecting people's rights, including their right to decline care, make changes to their support and live private lives. The two registered managers promoted a positive culture focused on promoting people's independence, choice and person-centred care. They encouraged staff to develop their skills and knowledge and were committed to providing opportunities for career progression. This was evidenced by high staff retention rates and staff feedback around opportunities for professional development. Staff spoke positively about the leadership team and described a supportive working environment that encouraged effective teamwork and open communication. The registered managers were actively involved in overseeing the support people received and ensuring it was delivered safely. They understood people's needs well and took steps to ensure care remained effective, responsive and tailored to each individual. There were effective systems to monitor the quality of care, identify areas for improvement and support ongoing development. Information from audits, incidents and feedback were used to improve practice, encourage learning and strengthen processes. Senior leaders had ongoing oversight of improvement plans, and the provider continued to invest in new systems and training to enhance the quality of care. For example, at the time of our inspection, they were implementing an electronic care planning system, which helped improve the monitoring and oversight of care. In another example, staff had attended additional training to improve their skills and knowledge in supporting people to maintain their skin integrity. This helped build their confidence and skills in providing safe and proactive support.
People's experience of this service
People and their relatives consistently told us they felt safe receiving support and spoke highly of the care provided. Staff were described as kind, caring, respectful and reliable. One person told us, "Oh yes, very safe. They are very efficient and kind," while another said staff were "good solid people." A relative told us their family member "absolutely loves them" and said staff made them feel valued. Another person explained, "You just get the feeling of care from them all the time and they want to do the best for you."
People described positive relationships with staff, who took time to get to know them, understand their preferences and tailor support around their wishes. They felt reassured by knowing who would be visiting and said they experienced consistency in the support they received. People also told us staff were reliable, arrived on time, stayed for the agreed length of visits and that they had not experienced missed calls.
People said staff knew their routines, preferences and individual needs, helping them feel comfortable and confident in the care provided. They told us they did not need to repeatedly explain how they wished to be supported. A relative described how staff promoted their family member's independence by offering choices and involving them in decisions about daily life. People said staff treated them with respect, protected their privacy and dignity, and took a patient approach to providing support.
People spoke positively about staff's skills and competence. One person explained they had been involved in showing staff how to support them with aspects of their personal care routine and felt confident staff knew what they were doing. People said care was provided in line with their preferences and that staff did not rush visits, taking the time needed to ensure support was delivered properly. Some people told us staff would stay longer when necessary if additional help was required.
Where people received support with medicines, they said this was provided safely and without issues. Examples included assistance with prescribed creams, eye drops and other medicines. Nobody raised concerns about medicines management or the timing of support.
People told us they had been involved in planning their care and felt they were receiving the support agreed during their assessments and reviews. A relative commented, "What I asked for is what I am getting." People were able to describe discussions with managers about their needs and felt their views were listened to when planning support.
Nobody we spoke with had needed to make a complaint. People knew who the registered managers were and felt comfortable contacting them if they needed advice or assistance. Feedback about the management team was overwhelmingly positive. People described the managers as approachable, responsive and helpful. One relative told us the registered manager was "always happy to help, warm and caring," while another person said the office felt "like part of a family."
People confirmed staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) where appropriate and followed infection prevention procedures. They were confident staff took appropriate steps to protect their health and safety.
People and relatives gave examples of how staff promoted independence. One relative described how staff had helped their family member regain confidence and mobility following a hospital stay. They explained staff had initially supported the person to attend meals in the communal restaurant in a wheelchair. Through encouragement and support, the person was later able to attend independently. Other people told us how the support they received enabled them to remain independent and continue living in their own homes.
People also described the service as flexible and responsive. They told us visit times could be adjusted when needed, including around hospital appointments, holidays and other commitments. People felt confident requests for changes would be accommodated wherever possible.
Feedback about the service was overwhelmingly positive. People told us they would recommend it to others and repeatedly described the team as caring, supportive and professional. One person said, "I have nothing bad to say about any of them, it's so well run." Another explained staff had supported them through significant life events, including bereavement and surgery, and said they could not rate them highly enough. A relative reflected on their initial concerns about arranging care and told us staff had been "great all the way through." Overall, people expressed high levels of satisfaction with both the support they received and the way it was managed.