- Homecare service
Prominence Care Group
Assessment report published 26 January 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment 16 October 2025 to 24 November 2025. We carried out an assessment in response to concerns we had received about the service.
The provider provides personal care for younger people with a learning disability and/or mental health conditions. People were supported within a supported living setting with their own tenancy agreement. Not everyone who used the service received the regulated activity of personal care. The Care Quality Commission [CQC] only inspects where people receive personal care, this is help with tasks related to personal hygiene. At the time of our assessment, the provider was supporting 5 people, however, only one person received support with personal care.
At the time of the assessment, the service was not used by anyone with a learning disability or an autistic person. However, we assessed the service against the ‘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. We found these principles were not always upheld and there was work required to improve the culture.
We identified 7 breaches of the regulations, relating to safe care and treatment, the need for consent, safeguarding, staffing, fit and proper persons employed, good governance and failing to notify CQC of certain incidents.
We had concerns around risk management, learning from incidents and appropriate staff training, especially where they were supporting a person with complex health needs. Records relating to staff recruitment did not demonstrate a robust process to keep people safe. Some restrictive approaches had occurred without clear legal justification or best interest decisions having been recorded. The provider’s safeguarding processes had not ensured staff acted in a timely way on all safeguarding concerns. Risks were not always effectively identified and assessed. Support plans did not contain sufficient information about all aspects of a person’s support needs to guide staff effectively.
There was a lack of governance oversight which meant the provider did not have effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service. The provider had not ensured incidents were always appropriately reported and CQC notified.
Overall, staff spoke positively about the support received in their roles and told us they felt able to raise any concerns with managers. The provider was responsive to our feedback and took some immediate actions to make improvements to the service.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this inspection.
People's experience of this service
The feedback we received about the service, indicated individual staff were kind in their approach and did their best to support people safely. However, we found people were not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives, and staff were not always supporting people in the least restrictive way possible. The provider could not always demonstrate they were acting in people’s best interests. We received feedback which indicated a person’s needs were not being effectively met within the service.
We found the provider had not embedded an effective culture where staff always learnt from incidents and accidents, and staff supported people with positive risk taking, which protected their human rights and allowed them to engage in the community. Staff did not always have all the information needed and/or training to meet people's needs effectively.