• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Heart of Gold Homecare Ltd

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

35 Lee Lane, Horwich, Bolton, BL6 7AX

Provided and run by:
Heart of Gold Homecare Ltd

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Our current view of the service

Requires improvement

Updated 6 November 2025

Date of assessment: 17 November – 16 December.

Heart of Gold Homecare is a domiciliary care agency who at the time of the inspection were supporting 32 people, 16 of which were receiving personal care as a regulated activity. A regulated activity is an activity relating to health or social care that is prescribed in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) regulations 2014 and requires registration with the CQC. The service provided support to autistic people and people with a learning disability. We have 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.

There were 3 breaches of regulation identified at this inspection which were in relation to safe care and treatment, safeguarding and good governance.

The provider’s management of safety incidents required improvement. Not all staff had a good understanding of safeguarding, and some safeguarding concerns had not been escalated appropriately. The registered manager was completing competency assessments with staff but did not have the appropriate qualifications to do so. Staff had access to training in key skills, but some staff’s completion rates were low. Audits for infection prevention and control and the person’s home were not up to date. Medicines management required improvement. However, staff assessed risks to people, acted on them and kept good care records.

Staff supported people with eating and drinking, however there were some improvements required. Some policies and procedures required a review, the outcomes of people needed closer scrutiny, the service needed to work more closely with healthcare providers such as district nurses, and staff required further training and knowledge of the key conditions they were supporting. However, staff worked well together for the benefits of people they were supporting, advised them on how to lead healthier lives and understood the importance of consent being sought.

Staff supported people to maintain their independence, choice and control. The provider supported staff to stay well and had appropriate measures in place to ensure this.

People’s care plans, risk assessments and daily notes, overall, were person centred. There were appropriate systems in place to ensure people and their relatives could provide feedback. The registered manager was knowledgeable about how people the provider was supporting were likely to be discriminated against.

The provider had visions and values, although some were not being fully achieved. The registered manager had not identified the key issues identified during the inspection. The systems used were unreliable in identifying key concerns. Continuous improvement was considered but this was made difficult due to the audit systems not being as effective as they should be. The provider did not always work effectively with other partners. However, the staff felt respected, supported and valued and felt there was a good culture. Staff were aware of how to raise concerns including ‘speaking up’. The registered manager ensured staff were treated equally and fairly.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

People's experience of the service

Updated 6 November 2025

Overall, people’s feedback about the service was positive. A relative said, “I would shout it from the roof top if I could, they are so trustworthy, and I feel it is their aim in life to look after my [relative].”

People were aware of how to raise concerns, and they felt listened to by the registered manager. They said the service completed comprehensive care plans which were reviewed on a regular basis. People said it was unusual for staff to be late for a call, and they always spent adequate amounts of time at their property. A relative said “They [the staff] turn up when they should and [relative] is never rushed, they look after [relative] well.” People felt safe and told us the staff were well trained. Nobody we spoke with had concerns regarding infection prevention and control practices.

People said the team members worked well together and alongside other professionals.

People felt they were treated with kindness, compassion and respect and were encouraged to maintain their independence.

People said there was a continuity of care with them having the same staff as regularly as possible. People told us the service was responsive to their needs and person centred.

People told us the communication with the manager was “excellent” and if they had any concerns, they felt comfortable speaking with them.