- Homecare service
1st Central Care Ltd
We served three warning notices on 1st Central Care Ltd on 27 March 2026 and 16 April 2026 for failing to meet the regulation related to Good Governance (Reg 17), Safe Care and Treatment (Reg 12) and Staffing (Reg 18) at 1st Central Care Ltd.
Assessment report published 27 May 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 05 March to 21 April 2026
1st Central Care Ltd is a domiciliary care provider, they are regulated for the activities of personal care and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. This was the first assessment of the service.
Overall, the quality of care provided was inconsistent, and there were significant concerns across all key questions. While people and relatives highlighted positive experiences with some individual staff members, these were not consistently supported by effective systems, governance or leadership to ensure safe, person‑centred and high‑quality care.
People were at risk of avoidable harm due to widespread failures in safety systems. There were serious concerns relating to medicines management, infection prevention and control, incident management and staff training. Medicines were not always administered safely, records were incomplete, and audits were largely absent. Infection control practices were inconsistent, with people and relatives describing poor hand hygiene and glove use. Incidents and safeguarding concerns were not always investigated, reviewed or reported appropriately, limiting opportunities to learn and improve safety.
The effectiveness of care was variable. While some people experienced good outcomes, particularly where staff worked closely with hospice and healthcare professionals, care planning and risk management were not consistently robust or up to date. Delays in reviewing care plans and call times that did not align with people’s needs affected people’s comfort, pain management and wellbeing. People and families were not always involved in reviews, and outcomes were not routinely monitored to ensure care remained effective as needs changed.
Caring practice was mixed. Many people spoke positively about the kindness, compassion and reassurance provided by individual carers, and examples were seen where people’s preferences and dignity were respected. However, these positive experiences were undermined by inconsistent staffing, gaps in training and poor care planning, which meant people did not always feel well supported or confident in the care being delivered.
The service was not consistently responsive to people’s needs. People often did not know who would be attending or when, and late or shortened visits affected people’s independence, choice and control. Care records lacked sufficient detail to guide staff in responding to people’s individual needs, increasing the risk of inconsistent care.
Leadership and governance were significant areas of concern. Systems to monitor quality, safety and performance were ineffective or absent. The provider did not have adequate oversight of risks, safeguarding, medicines, staffing or data protection. Although the management team were described as approachable and supportive, these qualities were not supported by the knowledge, systems or governance required to run a regulated service safely.
In summary, despite pockets of good practice and positive feedback about individual staff, widespread and significant improvements are required to ensure people receive safe, effective, caring and well‑led care.We found 5 breaches of regulations during our inspection activity, these breaches related to safe care, recruitment practices, staff development, person centred care and good governance.
In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded.We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this inspection.
People's experience of this service
People’s experiences of care provided by the service were mixed. Many people and relatives spoke positively about individual carers and described compassionate, respectful and person‑centred support. Others reported inconsistencies that affected their confidence in the service and their overall experience of care.
Many relatives told us that carers were kind, friendly and supportive. People described carers as “lovely”, “brilliant” and “exceptional”, and several said carers took time to talk, reassure people and ensure they were comfortable before leaving. Some relatives highlighted positive outcomes from care, including improvements in skin integrity, effective pain relief, and good coordination with district nursing and palliative care services. People told us carers were attentive, checked drinks were available, supported with personal care sensitively and involved people in conversation, which helped them feel at ease.
However, people’s experiences were not consistent. Several relatives told us they did not always receive the same carers and were often unsure who would be attending or at what time. Some reported that carers arrived late without prior notification, which caused distress and, in some cases, affected timely administration of pain relief medicines. Others said communication was better and that they were informed when carers were delayed, indicating variability in practice.
Concerns were raised by some people about carers’ knowledge and confidence when providing care. Relatives described occasions where carers were unfamiliar with people’s needs, required instructions from family members, or did not interact meaningfully with the person they were supporting. A small number of people reported concerns about infection prevention practices, including carers not washing hands or changing gloves appropriately between tasks. These experiences caused distress and reduced trust in the care being provided.
People told us they generally felt listened to and said managers were approachable and responsive when concerns were raised. Several relatives reported that issues were addressed when escalated to the office or management team, and adjustments were made to carers or care arrangements when requested. However, some people felt improvements were slow or that further action was still required.
Overall, while many people experienced kind and compassionate care from individual carers, inconsistencies in continuity, communication, timing of visits and adherence to good hygiene practice meant that people’s experiences were not consistently positive.