- Homecare service
Homecare For You Dudley
We served warning notices on Homecare for You Ltd. on 24 August 2026 for failing to meet regulations related to safe care and treatment, safeguarding and governance at Homecare for You Dudley.
Assessment report published 5 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Homecare for You Dudley provides domiciliary care. The service is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes, including people with physical disabilities, mental health conditions, dementia and sensory impairments. Not everyone who uses the service receive personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. At the time we started our assessment, the service was providing support to 50 people, 48 people were support with a regulated activity.
The provider was supporting people who were autistic and/or had a learning disability. Therefore, we assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
This was the providers first assessment since the service was registered in September 2025. Our assessment took place from 4 August 2026 to 17 August 2026 with a site visit on 4 August 2026.
During this assessment, we identified the provider was in breach of regulations relating to Safe care and treatment, safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment and good governance.
Governance, oversight and quality assurance systems were not effective to ensure people consistently received safe, effective and responsive care. Audits and monitoring processes failed to identify a number of concerns, including incomplete and inconsistent care plans, ineffective risk assessments, missed safeguarding referrals, failures to submit statutory notifications to CQC, and gaps in record keeping.
Safeguarding concerns recorded within incident records were not always recognised or escalated appropriately, and several incidents which met the threshold for safeguarding referral had not been referred to the local authority. Opportunities to identify trends, learn from incidents and drive improvement were therefore missed.
Care plans and risk assessments were not consistently reviewed and updated following incidents, meaning changes in people's needs and risks were not always reflected in care records. We found examples of missing and inconsistent information, including a lack of bed rail risk assessments, insufficient medicines risk assessments, the absence of falls risk assessments for people at high risk of falling, and discrepancies within moving and handling documentation. Care records did not always contain clear guidance for staff, and, in some cases, information held within risk assessments had not been incorporated into care plans.
Environmental risks were assessed and managed appropriately, infection prevention and control arrangements were effective, and staff received induction, training and supervision to support them in their roles. Systems were in place to monitor call delivery, with no missed calls identified and visits generally provided for their planned duration. Care plans contained person-centred information about people's preferences, communication needs and routines, and staff adapted their approach to meet individual needs. The provider promoted people's independence, respected choice and consent, and supported people in a caring and dignified manner. Information about communication needs, language, religion and preferences was recorded, helping staff provide personalised support.
In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.
People's experience of this service
Feedback from people and their relatives was mixed but generally positive about the care they received. However, the findings and shortfalls identified during this inspection may have impacted people's experiences. People told us staff were kind, reliable and understood their needs. One person described staff as, “friendly” and said, “They help me and they are reliable and just what a carer should be, or how you imagine a carer should be.” Another person told us, “Yes, they are lovely. They know everything about me.”
People generally felt safe with the staff who supported them. Relatives told us staff responded appropriately when concerns arose and sought professional help when required. One relative said, “One day last week [person] was passing blood so the carer got the district nurse out and then got the doctor out.” Another relative told us staff identified a pressure sore and ensured action was taken, stating, “They noticed a pressure sore on [persons] bottom, which has been sorted. They pick up anything and ring the doctors.”
Most people told us staff arrived on time and there had been no missed visits. One relative said, “They are always on time.” Another person told us, “Generally, yes [on time].” Records and feedback indicated people usually received their planned visits and staff stayed for the expected duration of calls.
People valued having regular carers and told us consistency helped them feel comfortable and confident. One person said, “The regular carers I have at the moment, I am happy with them, they know me well.” Another commented, “I prefer to have regular ones. They know you and know what to do.” Whilst many people spoke positively about continuity of care, some told us they experienced frequent changes in staff. One person said, “I get so many different new carers, and I try to teach them as well.”
Some concerns were raised about communication from the office. One person told us, “The office listens sometimes, and sometimes they don’t.” Another person told us they had previously raised concerns but felt “dismissed.” However, most people and relatives told us they found the service approachable and could contact the office when required. Several people said concerns they had raised had been resolved. One person told us, “Everything has been resolved and I am happy with how it was resolved.” However, not everyone was clear about how to make a formal complaint. One person told us, “No, at the moment, no,” when asked whether they knew how to complain.
People generally felt staff respected their privacy, dignity and independence. One person told us, “Yes [independence].” A person’s relative told us, “I would say yes, I suppose so [kind]. I haven’t thought about it, but yes, they promote [persons] independence.” People described staff closing curtains and doors where appropriate and supporting them to remain as independent as possible.
Feedback regarding infection prevention and control was positive. People and relatives consistently told us staff wore appropriate personal protective equipment and followed good hygiene practices. One person said, “They wear gloves, wash hands. They change them with every cream due to cross contamination.”