• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

A1 Healthcare Solutions

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

65 Ordnance Street, Chatham, ME4 6SB

Provided and run by:
A1 Healthcare Solutions Ltd

Assessment report published 30 January 2026

On this page

Safe

Requires improvement

9 January 2026

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been ratedrequiresimprovement.Requires improvement: This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Learning culture

Score: 3

The provider promoted a positive safety culture. Staff understood the importance of reporting and learning from incidents. One staff member described learning after a fall:“It was a learning curve for me… you have to stay calm, think quickly, and remain with the service user while waiting for emergency services.”
Lessons were shared in team meetings and adjustments made to care routinesifrequired.

Safe systems, pathways and transitions

Score: 3

Systems were in place to manage risks and support safe transitions. The registered manager worked closely with social workers and healthcare professionals to coordinate care and hospital discharges.

People confirmed they felt supported during changes.A person said,“They shadowed and met me beforehand a few times to make the process comfortable.”

Safeguarding

Score: 3

Staff had completed safeguarding training and understood how to protect people from harm. They spoke about respectful care and avoiding neglect: They said,“We make sure they are safe, free from harm, abuse or neglect… speak to them with respect.”


Policies were up to date and included local authority contact details.The registered manager knewwho tocontactwithinthe local authority if they had any safeguarding concerns.

Involving people to manage risks

Score: 2

People were involved in developing care plans and risk assessments, but these lacked sufficient detail to guide safe care. For example, catheter care and hoisting instructions were missing, creating a risk if unfamiliarornewstaffattended


One person saidwhen speaking about their involvement in their care records and risk assessments:“Yes, they were involved with theoccupational therapistand previous care team… when changes need to be made, they let me know.”

Safe environments

Score: 3

People lived in safe environments. Risk assessmentsidentifiedhazards such as trip risks and included control measures like clear pathways and verbal prompts.
 

Safe and effective staffing

Score: 2

Staff were safely recruited with DBS checks and right-to-work documentation. The registered managermonitoredcompliance and used the DBS update service.
People said staff were reliable and consistent. Oneperson said, “They[staff]are always double checking and triple checking everything… their priority is making sure I am comfortable andsafe.”

Staff had completed the providers mandatory training suchas, movingand handling and first aid. However,staff had not been trained to meet people’s specialist needs such as,cathetercare or skin integrity.

Infection prevention and control

Score: 3

Staff followed infection control procedures and worepersonal protective equipment (PPE)correctly. People confirmed:“Yes, they always wear PPE… gloves and aprons and dispose of it appropriately.”Training records showed staff had completed infection control training.

Medicines optimisation

Score: 1

Medicines were not managed safely. Care plans lacked clear instructions, and staff had not received training inmedicines management.One person said: “My[relative]does the administration… ifthey arenot around then[staff]will do it.”The registered manager confirmed that on no occasion have the care agencybeen requiredto administer any medication.

Auditshad notidentifiedthe concernswe found during this assessment suchas,medication profiles were not in place for“as and when required medicines” (PRN)such as, paracetamol. The registered managerknew what would happenin the event thatthis medicine wasrequiredhowever, this had not been recorded within the person’scare records.This increased the risk of errors and harm.