You are here

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 26 September 2019

About the service

Allicare is a domiciliary care agency that was providing support to over 130 people at the time of our inspection. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

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

The provider and registered manager had failed to ensure the quality monitoring systems in place were effective to ensure people received safe care. Oversight of the administration of medicines failed to identify in a timely way where actions were required. In some areas where care was provided, there were not enough staff to ensure all care calls were provided or delivered on time. This had place people at significant risk of harm.

Recruitment processes were not robust, and staff had been knowingly sent to work in people’s homes before checks of their suitability had been completed. Not all staff had completed training in safeguarding vulnerable people and we found that not all safeguarding incidents had been reported to the Care Quality Commission. Assessments of risks to people’s wellbeing were not robust

Staff training and supervision was not effective to meet the needs of people, we identified widespread gaps in training records. The registered manager and provider did not ensure people’s needs were assessed and supported in line with legislation, standards and evidence-based guidance. The registered manager, provider and staff did not demonstrate enough understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and assessments of people’s capacity were not undertaken. Staff did however, seek peoples consent before providing them with care.

Most people told us that staff were kind and caring however, we saw that some staff used terminology and language when referring to people that did not promote their dignity. Care plans did not fully reflect people’s life histories and preferences, and staff reported this impacted their ability to meet their needs. Some people did not feel the provider and management team were kind and caring towards them, requests from people for more information about who would be supporting them in their own homes were refused.

Complaints were not managed so that outcomes could be provided and any cause for concerns investigated to improve practice. Some outcomes from complaints had not been actioned, some complaints had not been responded to.

End of life and palliative care needs were not planned for, and staff had not received training to provide this, although the provider advertises that they provide this type of care. Peoples preferences were not always met, this included preferred gender of care staff and call times. The provider and registered manager had failed to audit and check if people received their care on time and for the duration agreed.

People were not supported by a service with effective management and governance systems in place. The provider and registered manager had not ensured that areas of improvement required and risk to people were identified and mitigated. The registered manager was aware of the decline in the quality of care and oversight since expansion of the number of people supported took place, but had failed to take action to address this. This failure exposed people to the ongoing risk of harm.

We have made a recommendation that all staff complete training in end of life and palliative care.

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

Rating at last inspection:

The last rating for this service was Good (27 October 2016)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating. We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report.

You can read the report from our last

Inspection areas



Updated 26 September 2019

The service was not safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 26 September 2019

The service was not effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 26 September 2019

The service was not always caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 26 September 2019

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.



Updated 26 September 2019

The service was not well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.