During an assessment under our new approach
Date of assessment: 23 October to 14 November 2025.
Archangel Home Care is a domiciliary care agency. It is registered to provide personal care to people over the age of 18 years, living in their own homes. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only assesses services where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. At the time of this assessment there were 4 people receiving personal care.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service operates. This was an announced assessment because the service was small, and we needed to ensure the registered manager would be available to support the assessment.
Archangel Home Care was last rated requires improvement (published 25 June 2019). At that time, the provider was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to quality monitoring and governance. This assessment looked at all quality statements within all key questions. At this assessment Archangel Home Care was rated good.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Whilst the manager was unaware of this guidance, the principles of ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ were met for all people who received support from Archangel Home Care.
Right Support:
People were encouraged to lead their lives in their chosen way and were supported to access activities in the community. Staff involved people in decisions and planning any changes to their care, independence was encouraged and supported. Staff did not restrict people, they understood and managed risks. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
There were enough staff, and where gaps were identified in training to support people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder, this was addressed immediately after the assessment. Staff described care they provided, which suggested they did have the skill and understanding to support all people. The registered manager made sure staff received regular supervision to maintain high-quality care.
Staff followed safeguarding procedures and demonstrated an understanding of how to raise concerns both internally and externally. There were systems to review incidents and accidents. People told us care was timely; however, oversight of staff deployment was not always adequate.
Right Care:
People were treated with kindness and compassion and received dignified care that respected their privacy and human rights. Care and support were person-centred and holistic. Individualised care and support plans were in place that enabled staff to provide person centred, outcome focussed, and safe care for each person. People’s preferred communication styles were known, and staff were skilled in supporting people with their communication needs. The manager was proactive in addressing gaps in policy and procedure identified about communication and accessibility during the assessment.
Right Culture:
People, their relatives and staff believed their views and feedback were valued, respected and consistently used to support quality service development. The ethos, values, attitudes and behaviours of leaders and care staff ensured people supported by Archangel Home Care led confident, inclusive, and empowered lives. Staff and managers had shared values which were based on supporting people to live an ordinary life as any other citizen with the same rights and opportunities.
The registered manager undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided; however, action was not always taken when concerns were identified. Relatives and staff felt the leadership of the service was effective and encouraged people to be involved in their care.
The provider was previously in breach of legal regulation in relation to leadership and governance. The service had made improvements and is no longer in breach of regulations.