Visiting Angels Northamptonshire

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

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

This is the first assessment for this service since it was registered in April 2024. This key question has been rated Requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 54 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Feedback from people and their relatives indicated that staff and the provider aimed to deliver person-centred care. However, people’s experiences were mixed. Whilst one person told us, “I can’t fault them, they are my new best friend,” another person said, “They spend too much time writing up their notes and sometimes do not stick to the allocated times for the visits. The staff meet my basic needs, but it can sometimes be a bit slapdash.”

Relatives feedback was positive. One relative told us, “They know how [Person name] likes to sit and where to put their blanket; they are very person centred.”

Staff knew the people they regularly supported well and understood what was important to them. They had access to care plans, including hospital transfer information, to ensure appropriate support could be provided in the event of a medical emergency. However, some staff told us about instances where updates to care plans and changes to call times had not been communicated promptly, which impacted staff’s ability to provide person led care.

Care plans reflected individuals’ needs, the support required, and intended outcomes, and records showed these were reviewed annually or sooner when needs changed. However, feedback was mixed regarding involvement in care plan reviews, with some people and relatives not always feeling included. One person told us they had a few calls from the office in the past year to ask if it’s ‘ok’ but were unsure who called.” and added “I did not think it was a proper review.”

We reviewed the digital care monitoring system and found a number of unresolved alerts relating to missed, unlogged care visits and incomplete care tasks. Although these alerts were visible to the manager and the head of people staff member, they remained active, indicating that the issues had not been fully addressed or closed. In addition, the provider was not receiving these alerts, which limited their oversight of service delivery. The provider had recognised this gap and had requested access to these alerts to strengthen monitoring and improve oversight.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Feedback about continuity of care was mixed. Some people told us they received support from a consistent team of regular reliable staff, which helped build trust and understanding. However, people told us when their regular staff member was absent, they were not always told which staff would attend.

Staff understood people’s individual health needs and how to access their medical information in a medical emergency. Information about specific health conditions and how this impacted people’s daily lives was not always incorporated into people’s care plans. For example, people living with a heart condition and how this may affect mobility, was not always evidenced in care documents.

Staff communicated effectively with external professionals to ensure people experienced smooth transitions between different services. A person said, “Visiting Angels requested an OT (occupational therapist) assessment, and aids for the home have been identified and are being ordered.” Although communication with external professionals was not always recorded, staff were often informed by family members, relatives, or other individuals, enabling them to update the relevant records accordingly.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People and their relatives were confident that their personal information was managed securely. However, we found confidential personal information in folders in the training room, which should have been stored securely. The provider also told us some information, both paper and digital records relating to governance and training information was missing. While the provider had a Data Security Policy in place, they could not provide the document for the data breach management. They were investigating missing records but had not notified the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) meaning they could not evidence the risks of loss of records had been properly assessed and addressed.

People’s communication needs were assessed and considered in the care planning process. A relative told us “[Person name] has a laminated sheet with pictures of the staff and their names to assist them in remembering who they are.” However, information was not always accessible or fully adapted to their needs. Care plans and surveys were not provided in accessible formats. One person told us they received a questionnaire but were unable to complete it because the document was not provided in large print. Requests for rotas were not always provided or when they were provided the information was not completed, which meant people were not assured if the care call was covered by staff or not.

Despite this, people told us staff communicated well with them. Staff told us where people’s health conditions affected their ability to communicate, they took the time to listen, support them and observed non-verbal cues such as body language to understand their needs.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or inform them of any changes made as a result. Feedback regarding people's involvement in care plan reviews was mixed.

The service had a complaints policy in place. Although it was reviewed in April 2026, we were not assured by the effectiveness. For example, the section relating to who complaints should be directed to, did not have the relevant contact's name or details provided. In addition, the policy incorrectly stated that people and their relatives could make complaints directly to CQC. We raised these issues with the provider and the manager to address.

People's experiences of how complaints were managed were mixed. One person told us they had recently raised several concerns about changes to visit times being made without prior notice. Another person said, “I complained to the carer about all the changes to the times of visits; they told me I could always go somewhere else. I reported it to the manager what they said; and they told me I don’t think the carer works here anymore.” Despite this, the manager told us there was no formal complaints process, and one complaint received had been dealt with by the provider. In the absence of records, we were not assured complaints had been managed in line with the provider's policy, which limited transparency and accountability.

Relatives were complimentary. One relative said, “All the staff I had communications with appreciated the rather complex situation.” The service received cards, letters, and compliments from people and relatives, but most were undated, making it difficult to determine when the feedback was received.

Telephone reviews carried out in April 2025 were mostly positive as were the survey results in January 2026. However, there was limited analysis of the feedback, and the associated action plan to address concerns and request for improved communication when staff were due to be late.

We shared these findings with the provider, highlighting the need to strengthen systems and processes to ensure feedback was recorded, acted upon, and used to demonstrate a culture of listening and continuous improvement.

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

People’s needs were assessed prior to using the service, ensuring the service could meet their needs safely when they needed it.

People knew how to contact the office or speak with staff directly in an emergency. The on-call support provided by the manager and senior staff, should staff or people need access to support and guidance outside of normal working hours.

The provider’s business continuity plan confirmed arrangements in place to minimise disruption to the service in an emergency.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

People's experiences of outcomes were mixed. For example, one relative told us, “When the weather is nice, they take [Person's name] out in their wheelchair.” However, another person said, “Originally we had set calls, but the company appears to be losing staff.” This meant staff and visit times were not always consistent, so some people did not receive care at their preferred or planned times, creating a barrier and reducing people's ability to plan their day with confidence.

The manager shared examples of positive outcomes achieved through the care provided. For example, one person reversed their diabetes through regular exercise and an improved diet, while another experienced reduced anxiety through collaborative support from staff and family. One relative also told us they could use the digital care system to monitor staff punctuality; review care provided and confirm their family member had received their prescribed medicines.

We identified concerns regarding staff training, competency checks, and the delivery of delegated healthcare tasks, furthermore, equality, diversity and inclusion training was not included within the provider's mandatory training programme. Despite this, people and their relatives did not raise any concerns about discrimination.

The provider had policies and procedures in place; however, some required updating and were not consistently followed in practice, reducing their effectiveness in guiding staff. Improvements were needed to strengthen oversight and ensure people consistently received equitable care and opportunities.

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 but those decisions were not always recorded.

At the time of our assessment, no one was receiving end-of-life care.

Records showed the provider had not consistently explored people's wishes and preferences for how they would like to be supported at the end of their lives. Although the manager told us these discussions took place during assessments and review meetings where appropriate, records did not evidence the discussions or any decisions made. This limited assurance that people's wishes would be known and respected.

Staff training information showed end of life training was not included within the provider's mandatory staff training programme, which may impact staff’s ability to support people at this stage of life. We raised concerns about staff training in this area with the provider to address.