- Homecare service
Visiting Angels Northamptonshire
We served a Warning Notice on Azan Home Care Limited in July 2026 for failing to meet the regulation related to Good governance at Visiting Angels Northamptonshire.
Assessment report published 4 August 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
The assessment was undertaken between 26 May to 9 June 2026. We visited the registered office on 27 and 29 May, and 2 June 2026.
Visiting Angels Northamptonshire is a domiciliary care service providing personal care for people living in their own homes.
This is the first inspection of the service since it was registered on 3 April 2024. This assessment was carried out in part due to concerns we had received about the leadership.
At the time of this assessment the service was supporting 12 people with regulated activities.The Care Quality Commission [CQC] only inspects where people are in receipt of regulated activities such as personal care.
We spoke with 4 people and 2 relatives, and received feedback via CQC Give Feedback on Care webform. We also spoke with 6 caregivers, referred to as staff in this report, a senior caregiver, head of people, the manager and the nominated individual referred to as the provider. We looked at a range of records relating to people’s care, staffing and management records including policies and procedures. We also sought feedback from the local authority and health care professionals.
We found 3 breaches of legal regulations in relation to staffing, fit and proper persons employed and governance.
Governance and management systems were not effective and lacked scrutiny and consistency. Policies and procedures in place were not robust nor consistently followed. There was a lack of formal systems for incidents, accidents and complaints and duty of candour was not always upheld. The provider oversight was not effective. The absence of a service improvement plan meant opportunities to identify and address shortfalls and to drive continuous improvement were missed.
Although we found no evidence that people had experienced harm, we identified shortfalls in staff recruitment processes, training, and competency assessments. These issues meant the provider could not fully demonstrate that staff were suitably skilled and qualified to carry out their roles safely and effectively. Despite changes in leadership, staff told us they felt supported in their roles and had developed positive, trusting relationships with the people they supported.
The service had experienced changes in both management and provider leadership. The service did not have a manager registered with CQC; however, a manager was in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC to manage the service. They and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
People’s needs and risks were assessed, managed and monitored. Care plans provided sufficient guidance for staff to follow and were reviewed regularly. Staff knew what abuse looked like and were confident to report safeguarding concerns. Staff knew people well and they supported people with their medicines and to access support from health professionals when needed.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to some of the concerns identified at this assessment. In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and / or appeals have been concluded.
People's experience of this service
People and relatives were happy with the staff, and the care and support provided. People were involved in planning their care. One person told us, “We both were involved in the initial assessment 18 months ago and have a care plan.”
People did not raise any concerns about their safety whilst using the service. One relative told us, “They are reliable, they use a key safe to get in.” Where people had regular staff, they were reliable and punctual, which helped build trust and understanding. However, some people told us they were not always told if staff were likely to be late.
Feedback from people was positive about staff, who were described as’ kind, caring and compassionate.’ Relatives shared positive feedback, comments included, “Staff talk to [Person name], their speech is poor, but they are able to understand them and they have a laugh.”
People described receiving care that was respectful, dignified and person centred. People told us their privacy was always respected. One relative said, “[Person name] always looks very clean.”
People told us they felt well cared for by staff. One relative told us, “They provide peace of mind for me, knowing that [Person name] is being well cared for.”
People and staff provided us with examples of how support provided by staff promoted individual’s independence, choice and having control over their lives. One person told us, “Staff are kind, it’s their attitude. They know me well, we talk about my family, what I like to eat. They let me do things on my own if I am able.” A relative told us, their family member manages their own medication, but staff always ensure they have a glass of water to take them with.
People told us they knew how to raise a concern if required, however, feedback about the actions taken was mixed. Relatives were overall very happy with the service provided. A relative told us, “I was delighted to find Visiting Angels who I engaged to provide a Companion Service with trained staff who could speak up for [Person name] if need arose.”
Although people were happy with the service, during this assessment we found concerns that did not meet expected standards, which could put people at risk of harm.