- Homecare service
Cheshire Support Services
Assessment report published 1 July 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 29 April to 22 May 2026. Site visits to the providers registered office address were carried out on 29 April and 11 May 2026.
An assessment has been undertaken of a specialist service that is registered for use by autistic people or people with a learning disability. At the time of the assessment, the service was not delivering personal care to anyone with a learning disability or an autistic person. However, we assessed the care provision under Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture, as it is registered as a specialist service for this population group.
Cheshire Support Services is a domiciliary care service registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. During the assessment, 3 regulatory breaches in respect of safe care and treatment, staffing and governance were identified.
Systems to mitigate risks to people’s safety were not managed effectively. The assessment and planning of people’s care did not always adhere to best practice guidance. Where people had individual risks, we found no adequate assessment of these risks had been completed. However, we found staff were knowledgeable about people’s care needs and risks and they could confidently describe the action they took to keep people safe and reduce the risk of harm.
Staff were not always safely recruited and sufficient staff were not deployed to cover both the emergency and the routine work of the service. We found a lack of robust contingency plans to ensure the continuity of people’s care.
Systems in place to ensure the safe management of medicines were not effective. When people required support with medicines, they did not always have a detailed care plan in place and not all staff administering medicines had their competency assessed in line with best practice guidance.
Leaders had not created a positive and inclusive culture that supported the delivery of high-quality care. Governance systems did not enable the provider to identify where quality and/or safety were being compromised to ensure they could respond appropriately and without delay. The provider’s auditing systems had not identified all shortfalls which meant opportunities to improve the safety of the service were missed.
Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and understood the importance of gaining consent prior to supporting people with care. Staff supported people to manage their health and wellbeing. Staff described the action they took when a person was unwell and required a review from external health professionals.
The provider acknowledged some areas of the service required improvement and further development. They responded positively to CQC feedback demonstrating a clear commitment to ensuring going forward the culture and delivery of care met regulatory requirements.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
People's experience of this service
People told us they felt safe in the care of staff. Comments included, “We feel safe knowing they are taking care of [Person]” and “The carers are very nice, I feel safe with them.” People told us staff treated them with kindness, empathy and respect. Comments from people and relatives included, “They are nice people, they are professional, they are respectful,” “They are so helpful, they make me happy when they visit, I get on with them all, they do everything I ask” and “They speak to [Person] and make her feel at ease, if she is having a bad day, they talk to her.”
People and their relatives provided mixed feedback about care reviews. Some people told us they had good communication with office staff and spoke to them regularly about their care needs whereas others told us they had not had reviews for a significant time or in some cases not at all.
We received mixed feedback from people and relatives regarding promoting people’s independence. For example, a person told us, “I do the exercises the Physio gave me, the carers watch me and encourage me.” However, a relative told us, “They don’t encourage [Person] to stay out of bed, they should be doing more, it is doubtful they know [ Person’s] likes and dislikes, I keep prompting them.”
People and their relatives told us they were supported by a consistent team of staff, and they felt confident staff had the required skills to care for them safely. Comments included, “We have the same team, [Person] recognises their faces” and “We have the same team of 5 carers.”
People and relatives provided positive feedback about how attentive staff were to changes in their health. Comments included, “[Person] has lots of UTI’s (urinary tract infections), so they monitor [Person], make sure fluid intake is high, and check the colour of [Person’s] urine. If they have any concerns, they let me know and I contact the district nurse or GP.” People and relatives told us staff reduced the risk of infection and wore PPE when completing personal care.
While people expressed general satisfaction with their care and treatment, our assessment found some elements of care did not meet the expected standards.