- Homecare service
Firstcall 247 Limited (Gloucestershire)
Assessment report published 3 November 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
This assessment took place between 16 August and 28 August 2026. Firstcall 247 Limited (Gloucestershire) is a homecare service providing the regulated activities of personal care to people living in their own homes. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care’; such as help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection there were 46 people using the service who were receiving personal care.
At the time of the assessment, the service was not supporting any autistic people or people with a learning disability, but the provider had regard to ‘Right support, right care, right culture’.
We found 3 breaches of the regulations in relation to the management of people’s medicines, person centred care and good governance.
The provider had strengthened workforce planning and management systems to improve continuity of care to help to ensure people received support from regular staff who were familiar with their needs. However, the provider had not consistently ensured people were always supported by staff who were familiar with their needs after a period of staff departures prior to our assessment.The records of the management of people’s risks and the safe management of people’s medicines were limited. This meant staff did not have access to detailed information about people’s medicines and support needs, putting people at risk of receiving inappropriate care and medicines. Improvements were needed to ensure people received care from regular staff who were fully informed of their needs and preferences.
However, the registered manager was supported by a branch manager who knew people well and was able to monitor the quality of care being provided.
The registered manager and the management team were making improvements and developing the provider’s monitoring systems to identify shortfalls and to ensure actions had been taken to drive improvement. For example, new systems were being implemented to monitor incidents and to ensure robust recruitment practices were being followed.
Staff were complimentary about the management team and felt supported and trained to carry out their role. They told us the culture of the service was improving.
Further time was needed for the registered manager to embed good practices and drive improvements.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
People's experience of this service
Overall, most people and relatives spoke positively about the kindness, caring attitude and day-to-day support provided by staff. One relative said, “I do think they [staff] are lovely incredible people. I can’t fault them.” One person told us the staff were friendly and said, “Yes, they [staff] treat me well. Always come in like friends.” Many people said they felt safe and well supported.
We received mixed views from people and their relatives about their initial and ongoing assessment of their support needs and their involvement in developing and accessing their care plan. People mainly felt staff were responsive to their changing needs and relatives were informed of any changes. One relative said, “Yes, they let me know. There have been a couple of times where he has a sore and they have told me to get creams.” People raised no concerns about the management of their medicines and meals.
The feedback from people and their relatives indicated number of recurring themes including being supported by inconsistent staffing, communication difficulties and concerns about the skills of some staff. For example, one relative said, “I have said that he would be better off with a few carers, not lots of different people.” Whilst another person said, “Yes, they [staff] treat me well. Always come in like friends. They are very personable and friendly, nice, we chat.”
People reported feeling safe when supported by staff and reported most staff ensured they were safe and comfortable before staff left. One person said, “Absolutely, they [staff] always ask.”
Some relatives expressed dissatisfaction with follow-up to concerns and complaints by the provider. Views on the management team were mixed, whilst some people reported recent improvements, others felt little had changed.