Sagecare (Surrey Court)

Updated 6 January 2026

Date of inspection: 08 January 2026 to 26 January 2026. Sagecare (Surrey Court) is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people living in their own homes. This was our first inspection of the service since the provider registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in October 2023. This assessment was prompted by a review of the information we held about the service.

The service operates within a large purpose‑built building offering extra care and support to older and younger adults who live independently in their own apartments. Not everyone using the service received a regulated activity; however, those who did received support with personal care. Personal care includes help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. At the time of our assessment, the service was providing personal care to 25 people. We reviewed all 33 quality statements across the five key questions: Is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well‑led?

During our assessment, we identified three breaches of legal regulations. We found concerns relating to person‑centred care, good governance (including records), and failure to submit required notifications to CQC. People were not always supported in line with their personal preferences, particularly during personal care, which caused distress. People were not always involved in decisions about their care, including care plan reviews and having access to their own records. Care documentation needed to be more comprehensive. Some quality monitoring systems required strengthening to ensure shortfalls would be identified and addressed promptly. These issues resulted in breaches of regulations.

Records relating to people’s risks were not always detailed or accurate enough to support staff to keep people safe. Medicines records did not reflect good practice for ‘as required’ medicines or the application of topical creams. Information held in people’s homes about managing fire risks also required improvement.

The provider did not ensure people received care from consistent staff, and people told us they did not always know who would be visiting them, which caused anxiety. Staff were recruited safely and received training relevant to their roles. However, staff did not always feel supported and had been left without a manager for a prolonged period. People told us they also felt let down by management. A new manager had recently been appointed, and a robust action plan had been developed to improve the service. Staff told us they treated people equally and without discrimination. Systems were in place for people to raise concerns or complaints, although some people were not aware of how to make a complaint or who to contact.

We have asked the provider to submit an action plan setting out how they will address the concerns identified during this assessment.

Updated 6 January 2026

We spoke with 16 people and relatives, either on site or by telephone, to gather feedback about the care they received.Not everyone felt safe or comfortable in their own homes. The service did not always place people at the centre of their care and support. Some people told us staffing needed improvement because staff were inconsistent and they did not always know who would be attending their care calls.

Most people we spoke with were unhappy with the service and did not feel treated with dignity or respect. People said communication needed to improve and they did not always feel included in decisions about their care. Several people told us staff were not always caring, describing some staff as rude or unresponsive to their needs. However, people said their regular staff were kind and helpful. Comments included, “Because of the staffing levels, there is never time for a chat, which I would like,” and “The staff are clearly not happy with their working conditions, they just have too much to do. I’ve had them come half an hour late, they apologise but then leave early to try and catch up. They are having to decide priorities for their time. They do the best they can in a bad situation caused by lack of staff and high staff turnover.”

People felt let down by the provider due to the prolonged absence of a manager, which left them feeling unsupported. No one we spoke with said they would recommend the service. Feedback included, “They’re neither approachable nor contactable. They only make excuses and promises. Managers and staff leave repeatedly,” and “It is not clear who to contact about anything.”