Updated 1 December 2025
Date of assessment: 18 December 2025.
24/7 Divine Healthcare Ltd is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. People had medical conditions and nutritional needs. At the time of the assessment, 7 people who used the service received personal care in their homes.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. In this service, the Care Quality Commission can only inspect the service received by people who get support with personal care. This includes help with tasks related to personal hygiene, eating and drinks. Where people receive such support, we also consider any wider social care provided.
This assessment was prompted in part by concerns about the management of the service. We caried out an onsite assessment on 18 December 2025 and an off-site assessment commencing on 22 December and ending on 23 December 2025. This service was registered with us on 15 May 2023, and this is their first assessment.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. The service was not able to demonstrate how they were meeting some of the underpinning principles of Right support, right care, right culture. The provider has an additional condition on their registration not to provide care to people with learning disability and or autism, but we found they were providing such care. We are looking at this further.
At this assessment we found 5 breaches of the regulations. The provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to need for consent, safe care and treatment, staffing, fit and proper persons employed and good governance.
The provider failed to follow safe recruitment practices, and several staff were employed without prior appropriate checks being carried out. The management of medicines was not robust. Some people’s risk mitigation measures were not in place. Staff were not supported with regular supervision, and 1 care worker had not received mandatory trainings. The provider had not worked in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and associated code of practice before delivering a regulated activity. The provider’s quality assurance systems and processes were not effective.
Notwithstanding the above, the provider ensured same care workers visited people’s home which promoted continuity of care. Also, care workers stayed for the agreed time and sometimes more.
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.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.