• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Home Instead Mid Cornwall

Overall: Outstanding read more about inspection ratings

St Austell Bay Business Park, Par Moor Road, St Austell, Cornwall, PL25 3RF (01726) 829312

Provided and run by:
Lankelly Care Limited

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

This announced comprehensive assessment took place on 11 February 2026. The service was last assessed 16 July 2017. Home Instead Mid Cornwall is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to older adults based in Bodmin, Fowey, Wadebridge, and surrounding areas of mid Cornwall. Home Instead Mid Cornwall is a franchise of the national provider Home Instead.

 

Not everyone using the service received personal care. CQC only assesses where people receive ‘personal care;’ help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. At the time of the assessment the service supported 55 older people, with 33 people receiving personal care and employed 37 people along with the nominated individual and registered manager. People received a minimum of 1-hour calls.

 

The assessment looked at all the key questions; safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well-led. Following the assessment we have rated the service outstanding overall.

 

The service had a clear mission “To improve and professionalise the experience of working in care” care staff were referred to as ‘care professionals.’ Staff were exceptionally well trained with a focus on continued learning and improvement. A recruitment assessment programme kept potential staff updated with their progress in starting with Home Instead. Care staff had the skills to meet people’s support needs and were matched with clients by considering their needs, routines, personalities, social preferences, medical requirements, and favourite activities. Staff consistently spoke highly about the service, and one said they had “Not worked for a company that care as much about their staff and clients as they do.” and “I would like them to look after me when I am older.”

 

The service always put people central to care planning, ensuring their choices and preferences were prioritised. Care plans focused on people’s current situations and desired outcomes. For example, a person wanted to continue to walk their dog despite impaired vision, with the help of care staff they were able to do this.

People were supported by small teams who knew them well. They understood their individual needs and preferences with a very strong emphasis on the provision of activities and reducing social isolation.

People were protected from abuse and risks to their safety had been identified and mitigated. The provider worked with people to understand and manage risk by thinking holistically so care met their needs in a way that was supportive and enabled them to do things that mattered to them.

Care staff excelled in delivering kind and compassionate care. They always looked for ways to improve people’s lives and were very proud and motivated to work for the organisation.

 

16 October 2017

During a routine inspection

Home Instead Senior Care Mid Cornwall provides care and support to people in their own homes. Home Instead Senior Care is a franchise which is operated by Lankelly Care Limited for this location. The majority of people who used the service, at the time of the inspection, were elderly. The service provides help with people’s personal care needs primarily in the St Austell, Wadebridge, Fowey River, Padstow and Launceston areas. The service provides a minimum of one hour visits, and ensures care is provided by a small group of staff for each individual.

At the time of our inspection twenty people were receiving a personal care service. These services were funded either privately, through Cornwall Council or NHS funding.

There was a registered manager in post who was responsible for the day-to-day running of the service. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We carried out this announced inspection on 16 October and 17 October 2017. This was the service’s first inspection since it was registered in March 2016.

People told us they were positive about the support they received from the service. They said the service was, “Doing an excellent job. I cannot say anything bad about them,” and “They are first class. Good as gold.”

People told us they felt safe. Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. All were clear about how to report any concerns and were confident that any allegations made would be fully investigated to help ensure people were protected.

There were enough suitably qualified staff available to meet people’s needs. The service was flexible and responded to people’s changing needs. People told us they had a team of regular staff and their visits were at the agreed times. People told us they had never experienced a missed care visit.

People received care from staff who knew them well, and had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs. People and their relatives spoke very highly of staff and typical comments included; “Very nice. They are respectful and kind,” and “They have a laugh. It makes all the difference if you are unwell.”

Staff were knowledgeable about the people they cared for and knew how to recognise if people’s needs changed.

Staff were aware of people’s preferences and interests, as well as their health and support needs, which enabled them to provide a personalised service. Staff were kind and compassionate and treated people with dignity and respect.

The management had a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to make sure people who did not have the mental capacity to make decisions

for themselves had their legal rights protected.

Staff told us there was good communication with the management of the service. Staff said management were, “Very supportive,” and “Very approachable.”

There were effective quality assurance systems in place. The service had an effective management team, and Care Quality Commission registration, and notification requirements had been complied with.