- Homecare service
Social Care Solutions (Raunds)
Report from 19 August 2025 assessment
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 8 September to 10 October 2025.
We carried out a comprehensive assessment in response to concerns we had received about the service. We started the assessment on 8 September 2025 and visited the registered office and people’s accommodation on 8 September 2025. We also carried out an out of hours visit to people’s accommodation on 8 October 2025. We reviewed documents and had follow up contact with the provider, finishing the assessment on 10 October 2025. This was the first rated assessment of the service.
The service provides personal care for younger and older people with a learning disability . People are supported in a supported living home with their own tenancy agreement from a landlord.
Not everyone who used the service received the regulated activity of personal care. Care Quality Commission [CQC] only inspects where people receive personal care, this is help with tasks related to personal hygiene. At the time of our assessment, the service was supporting ten people, however, only one person received support with personal care.
We assessed the service against the ‘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 these principles were not always upheld and there was work required to improve the culture.
We found the leadership of the service had been inconsistent and this had impacted the overall governance and culture of the service. A staff member told us, “You [staff] were just ignored when you raised issues, I was mentally and physically exhausted.” Another staff member told us, “It [the service] was unstructured and there were a lot of issues.” We were also told, “There was no respect for the team. [Manager] didn't listen.” and things were, "Brushed to the side." However, the service was being supported by an experienced registered manager from another service and the area manager and improvements were being made. The interim arrangements had been seen as a positive and supportive step by the staff team. A staff member told us, “The [interim manager] had addressed concerns, and you feel listened to.” Another staff member told us, “The [interim manager] was better and tackling issues.” Staff acknowledged there had been some improvements in the leadership leading up to this assessment, however, they expressed uncertainty about the future management arrangements.
Audits completed were not effective. The provider had failed to have sufficient governance and oversight arrangements in place to ensure systems and processes were effective to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the care and support to people accessing the service. Improvements were being made, however, more time was needed to embed and sustain a new culture and management structure.
We identified a breach of regulation in relation to good governance. This service has been rated requires improvement overall. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns we found during this assessment. The service has been responsive to the feedback we have shared, and leaders were taking remedial action to address the shortfalls we identified.
People's experience of this service
The principles of ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ were not always being upheld to ensure the service had the right culture.
A person we were observing could not directly tell us about their experience. We used our short observational framework for assessment (SOFI) to observe the person’s experience of the care they received. We observed positive interactions between staff and the person they were supporting. The staff we observed were kind, caring, compassionate and passionate about providing a good service.
Staff demonstrated they understood people’s needs and supported them in ways that treated them as an individual.
We received mixed feedback from a relative about people’s individual needs being met by the service. A relative expressed that the level of care their relative received was dependent upon the member of staff providing the support.
We found that care plans included some information about life experiences, preferences and how people wished to be cared for. Staff knew people well, including their hobbies, routines and personal choices. We observed staff being patient, kind and communicating in a respectful way.
People’s care plans provided some detail about what they could do for themselves and where they required support from staff. Staff promoted independence, choice and control and this was confirmed by a relative who told us, “[service user] chooses when to go to bed and when to get up. A professional commenting on the support a person received from staff told us, “I would also say they’re good with thinking a bit differently to try and support [person].”