Basingstoke

Updated 12 March 2026

Date of Assessment: 20 March to 14 April 2026. The inspection was prompted in part by notification of an incident where concerns were raised about the provider's systems when staff cannot gain access to a person’s home during a planned care call. This incident was subject to further investigation by CQC. As a result, this inspection did not examine the circumstances of the incident. However, this inspection examined how the provider implemented learning from this incident to improve safety. Basingstoke provides personal care and support to older people living in their own home. Not everyone who used the service was receiving the regulated activity of personal care, which is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. At the time of our inspection, they were supporting 72 people with their personal care. This was our first inspection of the service.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. These included remote monitoring systems to oversee care and promote safety for people supported in community-based settings. Systems covered areas such as electronic call monitoring, information governance, and personal security and safety.

The registered manager was organised and structured in their approach to work, using systems effectively to monitor key areas and reduce risks related to people’s care. These included risks associated with moving and handling, people’s medical conditions, and their home environments. The registered manager used learning from incidents, feedback, and audits to improve processes and enhance safety. Learning was shared with staff, and reflective practice was encouraged to help ensure improvements were embedded.

There were enough suitably trained and competent staff to meet people’s needs. Staff spoke positively about their roles and were motivated to support people to live as independently as possible in their own homes.

Staff and leaders demonstrated a good understanding of the actions needed to promote people’s safety and welfare. This included the importance of timely and accurate reporting and recording of concerns related to people’s safety or wellbeing. The provider acted promptly to involve people and relevant professionals in discussions about promoting safety, which supported people to manage known risks associated with their care.

Updated 12 March 2026

Overall, people were happy with the standard of support with their personal care they received. They told us staff were well trained, professional and had a good understanding of their needs. Comments included, “They (staff) all seem to know what they are doing” and “They (staff) follow guidelines from the occupational therapist when using the hoist, it gives me reassurance they are safe.”

People told us staff were kind and patient when supporting them with their personal care. They told us staff treated them with dignity and respect. Comments included, “They (staff) are brilliant when washing my hair, they close the shower curtain so that I can have some privacy” and “They (staff) are so patient with me, it takes a special person to do what they do. I am so grateful for the help.” People told us they had formed trusting and positive working relationships with staff, who took time to promote their wellbeing. Comments included, “I am happy; I have two fantastic carers who really look after me and know when I am having an off day and will give me a hug.”

People told us they felt safe receiving care from staff and were comfortable with staff working in their homes. Comments included, “I feel very safe with the carers helping me and I have no concerns” and “When they (staff) arrive, they are very good and I feel quite safe with them.”

People told us improvements were needed with the consistency of care call times and communication when changes to care were made. For example, people said planned care visits were frequently amended, and they were not always informed about changes to care call times or allocated staff. They told us this was frustrating and the issues they experienced were ongoing. Comments included, “Not all of them (staff) let you know they are going to be late” , “One (staff member) is good with (my relative), but you never know when he will rock up”, “They change bookings a lot so I need to keep checking (the electronic care planning system)” and, “They (staff) never come at the time they are supposed to.”

Some people told us they had raised these issues with the provider and there had been improvements. One person told us, “If I have any concerns, I contact the office and someone will usually sort things out for me”. However, other people felt issues around communication and continuity remained. Comments included, “I have spoken with the manager in the past and been reassured that I am being listened to. However, the problems continue.”

In spite of feedback around care continuity and communication, people told us they had not received any missed calls and the issues they experienced had not significantly impacted them. Comments included, “They (staff) have never missed a call” and “It is frustrating, but I am l lucky as I will just make my own breakfast (if staff are running late).”

People told us they were involved in planning and reviewing their care. Comments included, “In January we spent three hours going through paperwork as with my medication, loads of stuff has changed. We have also had a review about fire safety” and “Someone came to see me and set up a care plan which was super. I was fully involved and am happy with my care plan.”

People told us care promoted their independence and was reflective of their needs. This included help to carry out personal care tasks and manage medicines. Comments included, “They(staff) know what I can do for myself but are there if I need them” and “I get help with my medicines in the morning. It means I do not have to worry about forgetting (to take medicines).”