You are here



Review carried out on 7 January 2022

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about CARE 4 U SERVICES (LINCS) LTD on 7 January 2022. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about CARE 4 U SERVICES (LINCS) LTD, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 27 September 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

CARE 4 U SERVICES (LINCS) LTD is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of inspection 31 people were receiving personal care.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People continued to be cared for safely. Risk assessments were in place and reviewed regularly and as needs changed. Staff understood safeguarding procedures. Safe recruitment practices were followed to ensure staff were suitable for their roles.

There were enough staff to meet people’s care needs and people received care at the agreed times. People were supported with their medicines and good infection control practices were in place.

People’s care records contained clear information covering all aspects of their care and support needs. Staff had a good understanding of people’s wishes and individual preferences. People’s personal histories, preferences and dislikes, diversity needs such as cultural or religious needs and links with family were all considered within their care plans. Staff received training to meet people’s needs.

Where required, people were supported with their eating and drinking to ensure their dietary requirements were met. People were supported to access health care services when needed.

People received support from reliable, compassionate staff. Staff enjoyed working at the service and there was good communication and team work. Staff were caring in their approach and had good relationships with people and their relatives. People were treated with respect. Staff maintained people’s dignity and promoted their independence. Consent was sought before care was delivered.

The registered manager and provider monitored the quality of the service provided, along with the management team. They were aware of their legal responsibilities and worked in an open and transparent way. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good. (published 14 March 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Inspection carried out on 25 January 2017

During a routine inspection

This announced inspection took place over two days on 25 and 26 January 2017. At the time of our inspection there were 23 people receiving personal care.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People’s capacity to consent to their care and support was not always assessed. Some people supported by the service were not able to consent to aspects of their care. However, written capacity assessments were not in place. Staff did demonstrate that they understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and gained people’s consent when supporting them.

Recruitment procedures were sufficiently robust to protect people from receiving unsafe care from staff that were unsuitable to work at the service. Staffing levels ensured that people received the support they required safely and at the times they needed. People received care from staff who had the appropriate skills and knowledge to meet their needs. All staff had undergone the provider’s induction and the provider had a plan in place for on going training.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services when needed; relevant health care professionals were appropriately involved in people’s care. There were systems in place to manage medicines safely. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and people had care plans relating to the provision of their medicines.

People and their relatives told us that they felt safe when staff visited them in their home. People were protected from harm arising from poor practice or abuse as there were clear safeguarding procedures in place for care staff to follow if they were concerned about people’s safety. Staff understood the need to protect people from harm and knew what action they should take if they had any concerns.

People received care from staff that were kind and friendly. People had meaningful interactions with staff and looked forward to seeing the staff. People received care at their own pace and were treated with dignity and respect.

Care records contained individual risk assessments and risk management plans to protect people from identified risks and help to keep them safe. Care plans were written in a person centred approach and detailed how people wished to be supported and where possible people were involved in making decisions about their care.

The registered manager had values and a clear vision that was person centred and focussed on enabling people to have their needs and preferences met in the way that they chose. All staff demonstrated a commitment to providing a service for people that met their individual needs.