- Homecare service
Abacus Healthcare Ltd
Assessment report published 9 November 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 16 to 23 October 2026. This assessment was prompted by a review of the information we held about the service. This was our first assessment of the service.
Abacus Healthcare Limited was a care at home service providing support to older adults living in their own homes. Not everyone using the service was receiving the regulated activity of personal care, which is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. At the time of our inspection, the service was providing personal care to 40 people in the north Hampshire area.
The provider was registered to provide support to people with a learning disability and autistic people. At the time of the assessment, the service was not supporting any autistic people or people with a learning disability, but the provider had regard to ‘Right support, right care, right culture’.
The provider had effective systems to monitor risks and help keep people safe from avoidable harm. Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and knew how to recognise, report and respond to concerns. Risks associated with people’s care and home environments were assessed, and staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to support people safely while promoting their choice and independence. Medicines, infection prevention and incidents were managed appropriately, with regular monitoring and audits by senior staff providing oversight. People benefited from familiar, suitably trained staff who understood their needs. The registered manager understood the service’s capacity and had considered how it could grow safely and sustainably without compromising quality.
People’s needs were assessed before care began and reviewed as their circumstances changed. Staff understood people’s health needs, monitored their wellbeing, and knew when to seek advice or involve healthcare professionals. They received appropriate training, supervision, and competency assessments from senior staff. Some care plans required clearer guidance where staff supported people to monitor aspects of their health. However, staff knowledge helped mitigate these gaps, and there was no evidence people had been placed at increased risk. The registered manager responded positively to feedback and took prompt action to improve the guidance for staff.
People told us their care was delivered in a kind, respectful, and person-centred way. Staff promoted people’s privacy and dignity when providing personal care and encouraged them to remain as independent as possible. Staff valued the relationships they developed with people and understood the importance of companionship and social contact. People’s communication, cultural, spiritual, and other individual needs were considered within the care planning process, and the provider understood the importance of providing information in ways people could understand.
Care was organised around people’s needs and preferences and was provided by small groups of familiar staff. The provider responded flexibly when people’s circumstances changed, including adjusting care visits and working with other professionals where additional support was required. Some care plans did not fully detail people’s individual routines and preferred ways of receiving personal care. However, staff understood these preferences and provided personalised support in practice. The registered manager was receptive to feedback and told us they would continue developing care plans to ensure they fully reflected people’s needs and preferences. People had opportunities to provide feedback and raise concerns, and there was evidence their views led to changes in how care was provided.
We received positive feedback from people, relatives, and staff about the leadership of the service. The registered manager and senior staff were approachable, actively involved in the day-to-day running of the service and understood the needs of people and staff. Effective governance processes were in place to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service, including live monitoring of care and audits of incidents, care records, and medicines records. The registered manager demonstrated an open and reflective approach, responded positively to feedback during the inspection and used audit findings and quality improvement plans to support ongoing development of the service.
People's experience of this service
People and their relatives were positive about the care provided. They felt safe and described staff as kind, friendly and respectful. One person said, “I definitely feel safe. The staff are polite, friendly, and smiling.” People were confident staff would respond appropriately if they became unwell and gave examples of staff seeking medical or emergency assistance when needed.
People valued receiving care from a small group of consistent staff who understood their routines, preferences and health needs. One person said, “I get the same four carers. It’s great to have the same carers as they get to know you.” People said visits were reliable, with no missed calls, and they were kept informed about occasional changes or delays.
People felt listened to and said the provider acted on their feedback. Changes had been made in response to concerns about visit times or individual staff, and preferences about the gender of care staff were respected. People also said additional or amended visits were arranged when their needs changed.
People felt staff were competent and provided care in the way they preferred. Staff explained what they were doing, sought permission before starting care and respected people’s choices. One person said, “I am involved in the care I receive. I make the decisions; the staff know what to do and how I like to be helped.” People and relatives were positive about support with medicines, moving and handling, personal care and health needs.
People said staff treated them with compassion and protected their privacy and dignity, including during personal care. They were encouraged to do what they could for themselves to maintain their independence. People also valued the companionship staff provided, particularly where they lived alone. One person said, “If they finish early, they sit and chat, which is good if you live on your own and get lonely.”
People knew how to raise concerns and described the registered manager as approachable and responsive. Overall, people and relatives were positive about the service and felt their care reflected their needs and preferences. They said they would recommend the provider to others, with one person commenting, “100%, I would recommend them.”