- Homecare service
Archived: Lancashire Domiciliary Care Service
Report from 4 November 2025 assessment
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 7 January to 2 March 2026. Lancashire Domiciliary Care Service is a supported living service, providing support for 159 people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. People were supported in a mix of shared and single person accommodation, both in their own homes and onsite at Lisieux Hall.
Lancashire Domiciliary Care Services is registered to provide 2 types of adult social care services; Domiciliary Care Agency (DCA) and Supported Living. At the time of this inspection, only the Supported Living service was actively delivering regulated care. Not everyone who used the Supported Living service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care.
An announced inspection took place to review the service, following information received about the safety and quality of care, hygiene, support with eating and drinking, medicines management and activities. At the last inspection, the home was rated good. At this inspection we found standards had declined and the home was now in breach of legal regulations for good governance.
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.
There were systems to respond to and learn from safety events, and safeguarding concerns were shared with the appropriate agencies. Flexible support was available to prepare people for their move between services. Staff were recruited safely and received a robust induction. Staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE).
Best practice guidance was followed for people with modified diets. Information about people’s needs were shared between staff teams and healthcare partners. Outcomes to people’s independence and quality of life were monitored. Staff sought consent in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).
Staff were kind and caring, respected people’s privacy and promoted choice and control. People had access to activities and volunteering opportunities both at Lisieux Hall and in their local community. Staff understood when people were in pain or distress and responded appropriately. The provider prioritised staff wellbeing, and staff felt well supported.
Staff received training in person centred care, and subjects relevant to the people they supported, to improve their understanding. Information was provided in a way people could understand, and a robust complaint’s procedure was in place. People had access to the necessary aids and adaptions, and support was offered flexibly to meet their needs.
The provider’s visions and values were shared with new staff, and staff received support from managers who were knowledgeable and experienced. Staff were able to speak up about concerns, and felt they were treated fairly. The service had excellent links within the local community which had contributed to positive outcome for people. Several forums met regularly to discuss areas of improvement, and drive innovation.
However, risks to people were not always recorded or managed appropriately. Several maintenance concerns were noted, and improvements were needed to fire safety. Medicines were not always stored securely. Some care plans were not adequately detailed, and we found inconsistencies in information and gaps to monitoring records. People had not always had their advanced wishes considered, despite suffering from complex health conditions and clinical deterioration. Checks and audits had not been effective at driving the necessary improvements.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
People's experience of this service
Relatives were mostly positive about the service, and the care people received. Comments included, “We are very happy with the service,” “[Person] has always been more than happy, we’ve never had any complaints. They look very well cared for and happy,” and “As a family we all love how happy [person] is at [their home]. We couldn’t wish for anything better.”
People and relatives also spoke highly of the staff. One person said they were, “Fantastic.” A relative added, “I feel [person] is well cared for. The majority of staff who have been caring for them for a long time genuinely care.”
Relatives were kept informed about incidents and confirmed people were supported to stay safe. A relative told us, “[Person’s] behaviour makes me think that they feel safe. The way the house is managed is conducive to safety without affecting [person’s] privacy and dignity. They can navigate the house safely with boundaries. When they go out and about, they are mindful of [person’s] limitations and abilities. [Person’s] understanding is limited so they have put a lot of time into ensuring they are safe.”
We used observations to understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. Staff were seen to interact with people in a kind and caring manner, and we observed staff knocking on people’s bedroom doors, seeking consent and promoting choice. A relative told us, “[Staff] encourage [person] in a subtle way to make choices and decisions. [Person] is able to make some choices even if it’s between 2 or 3 things. [Staff] always make sure [person] makes that decision rather than making it for them.”
Relatives spoke about continuity of care at the service, and the positive impact this had on people. One relative said, “The vast majority of the staff have stayed stable. They are enthusiastic, open minded and confident. [Person] does need that consistency because their communication isn’t always clear and it can be frustrating if staff don’t understand them. We haven’t seen [person] distressed in a long time.”
People had access to varied activities including boxing, bowling, the cinema, walks, karaoke, shopping, social clubs, trips out and holidays. We had a tour of the amenities at Lisieux Hall and spoke to people about their volunteer roles.
However, we received some mixed feedback about the support people received to make healthier choices, communication and the level of input relatives had in care plan reviews. Whilst those we spoke with generally expressed they were happy with the service, our assessment found elements of governance did not meet the expected standards.