- Homecare service
Excel Care Management Services Ltd
Assessment report published 5 August 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of the assessment: 19 May – 22 June 2026.
Excel Care Management Services Ltd. is a domiciliary care agency registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide personal care and support to people living in their own homes. At the time of this assessment 195 people were receiving personal care.
The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulations in relation to good governance and safe care and treatment. The provider remained in breach of these regulations on this inspection.
The provider did not manage medicines in line with best practice. This has been a key feature in multiple previous inspections and improvements had not been made.
The provider did not comply with the Oliver McGowan Code of Practice. The Oliver McGowan Code of Practice sets the legal standards for learning disability and autism training for all CQC registered health and social care providers and their staff that all health and social care providers must follow. We found there were several staff who had not completed the autism or learning disability training, despite this being outlined as a concern at the last inspection. Similarly, the providers electronic call monitoring data (which captures information of when staff have attended people’s homes and when they have left) revealed concerns regarding a large proportion of calls being late.
The oversight of procedures associated with safeguarding concerns lacked consistency. People’s risks were not always identified or documented appropriately by the provider.
The provider’s governance systems and processes were not robust. The provider had not focused on ensuring improvements were made following the last inspection and some staff told us there was an unfavourable culture.
However, some improvements had been made. The provider was investigating incidents in detail and sharing learning and some aspects of care plans were much more detailed. The provider had appropriate systems and processes in place to make sure people’s environments and equipment were safe and no concerns were raised regarding infection, prevention and control.
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, if the action has been taken forward.
People's experience of this service
People’s experiences of the service were mixed. Whilst several people and relatives spoke positively about the kindness, reliability and consistency of care staff, others described concerns regarding call times, staff skills, continuity of care, and the overall quality of support received.
Several people raised concerns regarding inconsistencies with staffing, with large numbers of different carers attending visits. This was particularly challenging for people who lived with dementia and found unfamiliar carers confusing and unsettling. One relative said, “Relationships and trust are difficult to build when there are so many faces,” whilst another person explained they became anxious when there were “lots of different faces coming and going.”
Several people raised concerns regarding call times and call durations, with some reporting visits much later than scheduled, which impacted on their wellbeing and daily routines. This was particularly concerning for people requiring support with their meals, medicines, or diabetes management. One person told us their morning call, which was scheduled for 8am, sometimes did not take place until 10am, affecting mealtimes and blood sugar management. Others described evening medication calls taking place several hours earlier than expected. Some people also reported carers leaving before the allocated visit time had elapsed. A person said, “They are often in and out in less than 15 minutes” despite 30-minute calls being commissioned. Relatives also reported carers leaving shortly after administering medication with little opportunity for meaningful interaction.
People’s experiences of support with food preparation varied. Whilst some reported carers preparing meals, snacks and drinks to their preference, others expressed concerns regarding carer’s cooking skills and knowledge. Multiple examples were provided where food had been poorly prepared or undercooked. Several people felt some staff lacked basic cooking skills and life experience. This was a particular concern for people who relied on regular meals being prepared and had health conditions such as diabetes.
Some people and relatives described carers as trained and knowledgeable. However, others felt staff required further training in areas such as food preparation, dementia care, communication skills and basic care tasks.
Although people generally felt safe with the carers who supported them, concerns regarding medicines management were raised. Some people and relatives described missed medicines doses, medication timing concerns and occasions where medicines had not been administered correctly.
People’s experiences of being involved in their care planning and review processes were inconsistent. Some people and relatives confirmed they had been involved, whilst others stated they had not received formal reviews of their care. Several people felt improvements only occurred following complaints or interventions from other professionals. A person told us, “Things have improved but it has taken other agencies to get involved.”
People and their relatives consistently highlighted the importance of having regular carers who knew them well and understood their needs. Where people received support from a small, regular team, they reported improved outcomes, stronger relationships and increased confidence in the service. One relative told us, “Dad’s care has improved considerably since he has had continuity of carers,” whilst another said, “Having continuity of care is very helpful as [they] have dementia so having 2 regular carers helps tremendously.” People described feeling safe, settled and well supported when familiar carers attended their calls.
Many people spoke positively about the caring nature of individual staff members. Comments included, “They are so pleasant to me and they chat away,” “They are kind and friendly,” and “They are brilliant and we have a wonderful rapport.” Several relatives described carers treating their family members with dignity and respect, particularly where staff had developed a good understanding of people’s needs and preferences. One relative of a person with complex needs described how carers recognised changes in behaviour, anticipated distress and provided reassurance and comfort to prevent escalation.