You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 22 June 2019

About the service:

Corinium Care Ltd provides live-in support to people in their own homes. At the time of the inspection 176 people across England and Wales received support from the service to meet their personal care needs.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only regulates the regulated activity of personal care; this inspection report only relates to the provision of personal care.

People’s experience of using this service:

• The majority of people and their representatives (the agency’s clients) told us they were satisfied with the care provided to them by their live-in carers. These people often had the same live-in carers and well-established relationships with them.

• These people spoke positively about their care provided by the live-in carers. Comments included: “It’s like having another daughter, we get on so well, that’s so important. I’m hugely lucky”, “[Name of carer] is excellent” and one person’s representative described the care saying, “It’s of the highest quality and standard.”

• Prior to and during the inspection we received less positive feedback from some people and their representatives. They had experienced more changes in live-in carers than they had initially expected or wanted, had experienced an unsatisfactory client and live-in carer match and had experienced a lack of standard in the quality of the live-in carer provided.

• A common area of dissatisfaction was the level of communication people experienced from the agency’s office, particularly at times when a new or replacement live-in carer was to be organised.

• In 2018 there had been several changes in managers responsible for managing the agency’s office and the provision of care, as well as changes in care managers and office staff. Changes in office staff had impacted on the agency’s ability to always communicate with the 'client' in a way which best suited them.

• Care managers assessed people’s needs and were key in helping the office staff understand the type of carer needed. They reviewed people’s support plans, communicated with the ‘clients’ and were there to resolve any communication or care issues. One person’s representative had experienced several changes in care manager, they said, “I can never speak to the same person twice.”

• Prior to our inspection senior managers had been aware of where the service needed to improve and during the inspection they openly discussed with us, and shared with us, their action plans to address this.

• We found many improvement actions had already started but which needed now to be sustained. These included improved guidance for staff working in the office (‘bookings’ and ‘client contact’ teams), changes to the recruitment and induction process for live-in carers and better arrangements for ensuring ‘client’ support calls were made where required.

• At the time of the inspection a regional manager was managing the office and supporting the organisation of all care support. The office teams were more settled and working well together; benefiting from the improved management support.

• We found improvement actions had also started, in relation to ensuring accident and incident records, mental capacity assessments and best interests meeting records and investigation records were completed and maintained. Also, to make sure consent, when obtained, was always recorded. Further training and discussion around investigation recording and accident and incident reporting and recording was to take place with care managers.

• These areas of improvement needed to be embedded in practice and then sustained to evidence that the provider’s actions had been effective in bringing about the required improvements for people.

Rating at last inspection:

Service rating was Good; inspection report published on 15 January 2018.

Why we inspected:

The most recent inspection, started on 20 February 2019, was brought forward due to information of concern received by CQC.

Follow up:

We will continue t

Inspection areas



Updated 22 June 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our Safe findings below.



Updated 22 June 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our Effective findings below.



Updated 22 June 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our Caring findings below.



Updated 22 June 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our Responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 22 June 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our Well-Led findings below.