During an assessment under our new approach
Date of assessment 13 April to 5 May 2026. Candlelight Homecare Service Limited (East Sussex) is a domiciliary homecare service providing personal and social care to people living in their own homes. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where staff do support people with personal care, we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of this assessment the service was supporting 64 people, 50 of whom received the regulated activity of personal care in their own homes. At the time of the assessment, care and support was given to older people with physical care needs, autistic people and people with a learning disability.
We found improvements were needed in some aspects of the service. People’s care plans and risk assessments did not always reflect their assessed needs. Staff knew people well and understood the care and support required. This helped to mitigate risks related to the lack of information in care plans.
We were also made aware of concerns related to the day to day running of the service. During 2025 the provider had purchased another company which was to be run from Candlelight Homecare Service Limited (East Sussex). Both people and staff from the purchased company were transferred into Candlelight Homecare Service Limited (East Sussex). This transfer had not been successful for people or staff and concerns were raised by both people, their relatives, and staff. The management team and staff told us that changes had been made and concerns were being resolved. People were supported by a consistent team of staff at times of their choice. There had been some impact to this due to the recent purchase of the new service. However, feedback from people, staff, and evidence from records demonstrated this was improving.
People were protected from the risk of abuse, harm or discrimination. Improvements were needed to aspects of record keeping in relation to managing medicines safely. There were enough staff who had been safely recruited and received ongoing training and support. People were supported to maintain good health. Staff were proactive in ensuring people’s needs were responded to and met in a timely way.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence, and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found autistic people and people with a learning disability received support from a small staff team who knew them well and had received extra training to provide the appropriate support.
The registered manager had a good oversight of the service. They were responsive to feedback committed to learning, improving, and developing the service for the benefit of the people who lived there. They acknowledged further time was required to fully embed improvements into the service.