- Homecare service
Home Instead Bradford
Assessment report published 20 January 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Dates of assessment: 18 November 2025 to 9 December 2025. Home Instead Bradford is a domiciliary care agency, providing care and support to people living in their own homes. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. At the time of our assessment, the service was supporting 31 people with personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.
The service demonstrated a commitment to safety and quality care through a proactive, open culture and robust systems. Although no incidents had occurred, clear procedures were in place for reporting, investigating, and learning from events, supported by regular reviews and staff updates. Safeguarding policies were embedded, staff were trained, and people felt safe. Risks were managed effectively through a comprehensive and proactive approach, ensuring people could remain safe while receiving care tailored to their needs. Monitoring systems ensured timely visits, and contingency plans minimized disruption. Medicines were managed safely, with accurate records and trained, competent staff. Overall, people and relatives reported care was reliable, person-centred, and delivered by familiar, skilled staff.
The service ensured care and treatment were effective by carrying out thorough assessments before people began using the service and reviewing these regularly to reflect any changes. Care planning was person-centred, based on people’s preferences, and delivered in line with legislation and evidence-based practice. Staff were trained and kept up to date with best practice, and people’s nutrition and hydration needs were consistently met. The service worked well with other teams to maintain continuity of care and offered additional support when needed, such as arranging social activities to reduce loneliness. Care plans included clear guidance on managing health conditions and risks, and staff monitored outcomes to ensure improvements, for example, supporting recovery from pressure sores.
The service consistently treated people with kindness, compassion, and respect, ensuring their privacy and dignity were maintained. Care was person-centred, reflecting individual needs, preferences, cultural backgrounds, and protected characteristics. Staff promoted independence and choice, supported people to make decisions, and responded promptly to immediate needs. People and relatives praised staff for their empathy, professionalism, and positive attitude, describing them as caring and attentive. Workforce wellbeing was also prioritised, with access to counselling and practical support, fostering a motivated and supported team.
The service ensured care was responsive by planning it around people’s individual needs, preferences, and backgrounds, with regular reviews to adapt to changes. Care was well-organised and integrated, with referrals made promptly to other professionals when needed. People and relatives felt informed and involved, and staff acted quickly to address concerns, such as escalating health issues or adjusting care packages. The service provided accessible information in tailored formats, listened to feedback, and made changes accordingly. People had equitable access to care and support, and staff demonstrated inclusive practice. However, there was no evidence of future planning, including end-of-life care, in care plans.
The service demonstrated strong leadership and governance, promoting a culture of transparency, inclusion, and continuous improvement. Staff understood and embraced the service’s values, and leaders were described as approachable, capable, and compassionate. Systems were in place for auditing, monitoring performance, and creating action plans to address risks. Staff felt supported and confident to speak up, and equality, diversity, and inclusion were embedded in practice. The service maintained effective partnerships with local authorities and community organisations, sharing learning and collaborating on initiatives such as scam awareness sessions.
People's experience of this service
People and their relatives consistently described the care as good, reliable, and person-centred. They praised staff for being kind, thoughtful, and professional, often highlighting continuity of care with familiar staff. Comments included feeling “Very fortunate” and giving staff “10/10,” with many noting staff were friendly, respectful, and maintained dignity during care. People valued the positive relationships they had with staff, mentioning good humour and companionship.
People felt listened to and supported, with staff responding promptly to needs and adapting care when required. Relatives appreciated being informed and involved in decisions, and feedback was acted upon, for example, changes to staff allocation when preferences were raised. People also noted that staff encouraged independence and respected choices, while providing reassurance and emotional support during difficult times, such as bereavement or loneliness.
People reported that care improved their wellbeing and quality of life. Examples included staff helping with nutrition, hydration, and health monitoring, such as managing pressure sores and arranging specialist equipment.
Overall, people felt safe, respected, and confident in the service, describing staff as caring, attentive, and committed to meeting their needs. Comments included, “The service I receive is excellent. They are very good company” and “I’m quite satisfied with the care.”