Cornwall Home Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe care, safe recruitment and governance at the service.

This service scored 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people’s care, and treatment was effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Care records were not always kept up to date. One person was cared for in bed, but care records directed staff to use moving and handling equipment when supporting with personal care. The care plan was recorded as having been reviewed 23 July 2026 but had not been updated to reflect the person’s current needs. Although we did not identify any impact this put the person at the potential risk of harm.

Assessment processes were comprehensive and included people’s physical, medical and emotional needs. Staff could access the care plan via the provider’s electronic app. Staff told us, “Registered manager does the care plans and goes through induction and it’s all on the app, easy to access and reviewed when things change. The registered manager will let staff know that it has been updated to see what has changed.”

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

People’s care plans were not regularly updated and therefore did not always direct staff on how to meet people’s needs. The registered manager told us they would update the care plans immediately and had begun this.

Care staff understood how to meet people’s individual needs and had a working knowledge of current best practice. Care staff told us, “We communicate with each other quite well, some communications get misunderstood, though never about a fall, maybe hoovering or dishes or can we just remember if running late always inform other carer.” Relatives told us, “Care staff are trained and competent in personal care.”

Staff had information about the support people needed to eat and drink. People told us, “I need help with food and drinks and there are always choices and the food is nicely presented.” and “I have a copy of the care plan.” and “The carers always check if anything else needs doing.”

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The service engaged positively with people’s relatives and involved health care staff to ensure people’s care needs were met. Care staff were complimentary stating, “Staff are good and communicate through the group chat, feelings and worries are passed on to the registered manager to raise concerns with district nurses etc.”

One professional told us, “The registered manager was very responsive to calls, emails and plans during the review period.” A relative told us, “Where a person is unwell the carers will contact a family member first if there are concerns or if appropriate will call the GP or other health care professional.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The service supported people to access health services when needed and accompanied people to attend GP appointments. One person told us “[Care worker] took me to the appointment, it all went ok, we were on time.” One relative told us, “Once when the carers went in [relative] was in a bad way and they called me and the ambulance and made sure [relative] was well cared for until I arrived.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Incidents had not been effectively reviewed to check outcomes were appropriate and if actions were needed to improve the care individuals received. For example, a record noted “soreness in groin area, legs hot to touch and struggling to get out of bed”. This was not identified as areas of concern nor reported to the registered manager. This meant any changes in people’s needs were not always escalated to the provider to be able to respond appropriately to identified risks. Staff did not always understand the importance of reporting changes in people’s needs and escalating concerns to relevant healthcare professionals.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

Actions taken to keep people safe meant people's human rights had not always been considered. Restricting one persons ability to leave their home had been made with the person's advocate, but did not include commissioned oversight and agreement. Whilst this was donefor safety reasons this decision should have been made in line with the Mental Capacity Act and decisions made in the person's best interests through a multidisciplinary approach.

However, staff understood the need for consent before providing care. We observed staff asking people how they wanted to be supported and checking with them before providing care. Our observations confirmed staff respected people’s choices and decisions. Care was provided in the least restrictive way. One person told us, “The carers are respectful and always ask if it is alright to proceed.”