- Homecare service
Wharfdale Extra Care Scheme
Assessment report published 7 July 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 11 May – 11 June 2026. Wharfdale Extra Care Scheme is a location based in Leigh which has 56 flats. At the time of the assessment, 18 people were in receipt of a regulated activity which was personal care (a regulated activity is a care service that a provider must be registered with CQC to deliver). There were 7 autistic people or people with a learning disability residing at the service, 3 of whom were in receipt of personal care.
The provider had effective systems and processes in place which ensured the service were identifying and learning from safety events. The provider ensured safeguarding concerns were identified and escalated appropriately. The environment and equipment were well managed and no concerns were raised. People and relatives told us there had been smooth transitions into the service. The provider ensured there were enough staff to safely support the people who resided at the service. Some improvements were required in relation to understanding and documenting people’s risks as there were assessments which were missing. Medicine records were not always clear and guidance for people’s ‘when required’ medicines needed improvement.
The provider ensured there were good working relationships with other professionals. They demonstrated some positive outcomes for people who resided at the service. People’s consent to care and treatment was respected and appropriate systems and processes were in place. People were supported to manage their health and wellbeing. Initial assessments needed to be more robust to ensure care plans had more detail for staff to follow.
Staff and leaders treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion. They promoted people’s independence and choice and control over their own support. The service promoted the wellbeing of the staff.
The provider ensured care was joined up and supported choice and there were forums to offer people a voice to share feedback. The provider ensured people were treated equally and there was an emphasis on ensuring staff were trained in end-of-life care. The provider needed to improve people’s care records to ensure they were more person centred.
The provider ensured there was a positive culture within the service. Staff felt supported and felt they could raise concerns with their immediate leaders. Staff felt they were treated equally by the leaders and there was no discrimination reported. There was evidence of learning from safety events and audits. The provider needed to ensure governance systems and processes were consistently utilised and embedded.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
People's experience of this service
People generally spoke positively about the care and support they received and described feeling safe. Many people told us they were supported by staff who were kind, caring and familiar with their needs. Comments included that staff “know me well,” “are lovely,” and provide care with “dignity and compassion.” Several people also told us they felt well looked after and had developed good relationships with staff and other people living at the service.
People described receiving support that promoted choice and independence. This included support with personal care, meals, shopping, laundry and accessing the community. One person said, “I am very much in control of what I do,” and others described choosing their meals, taking part in activities such as Zumba, knitting, bingo, day centre attendance and community events, as well as going out independently.
People said they felt safe and knew how to raise concerns. Several people told us they would speak with the service lead if they had any issues, and others reported no complaints or concerns. However, some people raised concerns about night-time staffing levels in a large service and felt this could impact response times if multiple calls occurred at once.
Most people felt communication with staff was good, with staff keeping them updated and responding when needed. However, some people raised concerns about inconsistency in communication and said they were not always aware of which staff were on duty or when changes occurred. A small number of people also felt care records and plans did not always reflect their current needs or were not regularly reviewed with them.
Feedback about staff was mixed but predominantly positive. Many people described staff as “supportive,” “kind,” and “competent” and said staff understood their risks and preferences well. Some people reported inconsistency in staff practice, with variation in how well staff knew individuals’ routines and needs, and occasional concerns about rushed care or staffing pressures.
People generally felt the environment was clean and suitable, and many had adapted accommodation that met their needs, including equipment to support mobility and independence. However, some people raised concerns about maintenance issues in parts of the accommodation. There was an external landlord responsible for repairs, and we did see evidence the provider did their best to raise concerns to them when they were raised.
People also described feeling supported emotionally, particularly during significant life events. A person described staff being, “Really compassionate and kind,” following a difficult period in their life.