• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Amber Rose Healthcare Ltd

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Room E17, Room E12, Flook House, Station Road, Taunton, TA1 1BT (01823) 807358

Provided and run by:
Amber Rose Healthcare Limited

Assessment report published 17 February 2026

On this page

Responsive

Good

2 February 2026

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Person-centred Care

Score: 3

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans were personalised and included details about preferences, routines, and triggers. People said the provider fitted visits around their preferred routines and were flexible when they needed to be.

Care provision, Integration and continuity

Score: 3

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People received consistent care from staff who knew them well. Care plans were regularly reviewed and updated, and staff worked with other health and social care professionals to promote independence.

Staff said, “Communication is very good. We are told about changes in medications, care changes, and appointments."

Providing Information

Score: 3

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People received contracts when they began to use the service. Contracts set out the number of hours to be provided each day and costings. This helped to make sure people were fully aware of what they could expect.

People’s care plans had information about communication needs to make sure staff were able to effectively communicate with each person.

Listening to and involving people

Score: 3

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care.

People told us they felt respected and valued. Staff encouraged people to make choices and adapted care plans when needed. One staff member said, “Everyone is different, we respect them. We offer choices and alternatives.”

People and staff felt able to raise concerns, and there was an open-door policy. One relative said, “I haven’t needed to complain. I think [person’s name] would tell me or the carer if they had a problem."

Equity in access

Score: 3

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service supported people with diverse needs, including mental health needs and learning disabilities. Staff understood the barriers which some people may face and worked to make sure people had access to services and support when they needed it.

Staff were confident they would receive training if someone with specific needs started to use the service. This would help to make sure any specialist needs were met.

Equity in experiences and outcomes

Score: 3

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care and support in response to this.

People experienced positive outcomes, such as improved wellbeing. One person told us, “There is nothing they could do better. I would certainly recommend them.”

Planning for the future

Score: 3

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The provider was flexible and worked with other health and social care professionals to ensure they were able to change people’s care packages in accordance with changing needs.

At the time of the assessment the service was not supporting anyone at the end of their life. However, we saw thank you cards from people whose relatives had been cared for by the agency. One card stated, "Thank you for making their final days as pain free and peaceful as possible. Without your care and help we couldn't have made their final wishes happen."