• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Horizon Care (South West) Ltd

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Rosemoor Court, Pynes Hill, Exeter, EX2 5TU (01392) 426340

Provided and run by:
Horizon Care (South West) Ltd

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

We served a warning notice on Horizon Care (South West) Ltd on 22 October 2025 for failing to meet the regulations relating to safe care and treatment, safeguarding and good governance at Horizon Care (South West) Ltd.

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of assessment: 25 March 2026 to 24 April 2026.

Horizon Care (South West) Ltd is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. Not everyone using the service received a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.

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 assessment was unannounced and carried out to follow up on the warning notices issued at our last assessment relating to safe care and treatment, safeguarding and governance. We completed onsite visits on 25 March 2026, 7 April 2026 and 8 April 2026. We assessed all quality statements under the 5 key questions: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The provider was previously in breach of 9 legal regulations in relation to safeguarding, safe care and treatment, person-centred care, consent, staffing, dignity and respect, notifications, governance and fit and proper persons employed. At this assessment the warning notices had not been met. We found continued breaches of 6 legal regulations related to safeguarding, safe care and treatment, person-centred care, consent, notifications and governance. At this assessment, the overall rating was Requires Improvement.

Although some improvements had been made since the previous assessment there remained significant shortfalls in the standard of care being delivered.

Risk assessments and care plans were in the process of being completed with people however, at the time of this assessment, the majority remained outstanding with very few accessible to staff on the provider’s electronic operating system. As a result, staff did not consistently have the information required to deliver safe and person-centred care. Where risk assessments and care plans had been completed, they did not always reflect people’s current risks and care needs.

Medicines management remained inconsistent, as medicines administration records (MAR) did not always clearly demonstrate safe administration, staff lacked clear guidance, best practice was not consistently followed, and no formal auditing process was in place.

The provider had taken steps to improve safeguarding procedures since the previous assessment. However, they were still not robust which placed people at risk of harm.

The service did not consistently recognise or meet individuals’ equality and diversity needs or uphold peoples’ human rights.

There had been some improvement in call times and visit durations being at the time and length agreed, however further improvement was needed. Many staff reported insufficient travel time between visits impacting on call times. Some people reported this was impacting on their wellbeing. The registered manager was encouraging care staff to ‘slow down’ and spend meaningful time with people rather than just completing tasks and rushing to the next visit.

Improvements had been made to staff support overall which was reflected in feedback received. Staff meetings had taken place and staff told us they felt better supported. However, they still lacked regular supervision to reflect on their practice and maintain their wellbeing. While periodic ‘spot checks’ of staff practice were carried out, these were not fully effective in assessing staff competency.

Since coming into post on 10 December 2025 the registered manager had begun developing systems to monitor and improve how the service was operating. At the time of this assessment, these systems were not fully effective.

A more comprehensive training programme had been introduced, which better equipped staff to meet the needs of the people they supported.

There had been improvements in daily care records since the previous inspection. The provider’s new electronic operating system prompted staff to record more detailed information about the support provided. This allowed greater oversight of the effectiveness and safety of care delivery and improved information sharing with external professionals.

Recruitment processes were being strengthened and were now more effective in ensuring staff were suitably skilled and safe to work with vulnerable people.

The provider was working to create a more positive and transparent culture. This had led to more constructive relationships with people, staff and external professionals, however further work was needed to ensure people were considered in a dignified and respectful way.

The provider continued to work collaboratively with the local authority and CQC to improve the effectiveness and safety of the service and ensure they met regulatory requirements.

This service remains in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide

In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded.

 

 

 

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of assessment: 23 September 2025 to 7 October 2025.

Horizon Care (South West) Ltd is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. Not everyone using the service received a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. We carried out this assessment as we had received some information of concern. At the time of this assessment, 236 people were receiving personal care from the service. We carried out onsite and offsite assessments. We assessed all quality statements under the 5 key questions: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. We found 9 breaches of the legal regulations in relation to safeguarding, safe care and treatment, person-centred care, consent, staffing, dignity and respect, notifications, governance and fit and proper persons employed. At this assessment, the overall rating was Inadequate.

We found significant shortfalls in the standard of care being delivered. Risk assessments and care plans were not routinely completed with people or reviewed. Consequently, staff did not have the information necessary to provide safe and person-centred care, and care plans did not always reflect people’s current care needs.

Daily care records contained minimal information, undermining the ability of both the provider and external professionals to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of care. People’s medicines were not always managed safely.

Safeguarding procedures were not robust, placing people at risk of harm. Staff were not allocated travel time between visits. This meant people did not consistently receive their support at the times and for the duration commissioned, and visits could be rushed.

There was insufficient evidence staff had received all required training to allow them to meet people’s individual needs safely. Staff also lacked regular supervision and support to reflect on their practice and maintain their well-being.

Concerns raised were not consistently acknowledged or acted upon, and the provider did not always demonstrate a responsive approach to resolving issues. Recruitment processes failed to ensure staff were suitably skilled and safe to work with vulnerable people.

The service did not always recognise or meet individuals’ equality and diversity needs or uphold people’s human rights. The provider did not supply accurate, accessible, and up-to-date information in formats tailored to the communication preferences and needs of service users.

The provider did not have effective systems in place to monitor how the service was operating and as a result had not identified that people were being exposed to a significant risk of harm. They had not always worked effectively with external organisations to monitor and review the safety and quality of care.

The provider expressed a commitment to working collaboratively with the local authority and CQC to improve the effectiveness and safety of the service and ensure they met regulatory requirements.

Many staff expressed positive views about the support they received and the overall management of the service. We heard about examples of person-centred care which had met people’s individual needs. We observed some compassionate and caring practice from a long-standing member of staff. They had developed a trusting relationship with the people they were supporting and had a detailed understanding of their needs and preferences.

In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded.

This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.

 

 

6 September 2017

During a routine inspection

The inspection was announced and took place on the 6 and 8 September 2017. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be available in the office. It also allowed us to arrange to visit people receiving a service in their own homes.

This is the first inspection of the service since it was re-registered with a new location address with the Care Quality Commission in August 2016.

Horizon Care (South West) Limited is registered for the regulated activity ‘personal care.’ At the time of the inspection they provided personal care to around 280 people living in their own homes.

There is a registered manager in post who is also the provider. 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.

The service was a family run business and the management team were committed to providing a good quality, effective service to people. The provider said, “We are supporting vulnerable people, we need to get it right for them.” They did this by supporting staff well to promote a consistent staff team, listening to people’s views and looking at ways to continually improve. One person said, “They [the staff] are always lovely. They are reliable and courteous and very helpful. If they are late they ring me and apologise. I’ve never had to complain.” One relative told us, “It’s a gold star agency. [Carer’s name] especially is a superstar.”

People told us they appreciated the visits from staff who were always cheerful and treated them with respect. One person said, “Some [care workers] are wonderful, so nice and I have one care worker who is so helpful. They turned up with a bookshelf for me when I said I needed one. They are like family now.”

Care workers said they enjoyed working for the service. They were well motivated and committed to providing a service that was personalised to each individual. People were fully involved in planning their care and support and care plans were comprehensive to make sure staff had all the information required to support the person. This helped to make sure people received the support they wanted.

There were quality assurance systems which monitored standards and ensured any shortfalls were addressed. People and care professionals felt listened to and said they could speak with a member of the management team at any time. Any complaints, including smaller comments and ‘grumbles’ made were fully investigated formally and treated as learning to enable the service to improve.

People received effective, safe care which met their individual needs and preferences. People told us the service was flexible and made adjustments to accommodate their wishes and changing needs. For example, when people had health appointments or where two people had specific needs there was a contracted agreement that they had access to an on call number at any time which would ensure a visit to provide personal care. Where any concerns were raised about a person’s health or well-being prompt action was taken to make sure they received the support and treatment needed.

People were complimentary about the care workers who supported them. People told us staff were kind, caring and respected their privacy and dignity. There were sufficient numbers of staff employed to ensure people received their care and support at times of their choosing. The service were revising their care worker ‘runs’ to reduce the number of care workers that people received support from. They had recognised that some people, although receiving care from a regular group of care workers, sometimes had seven care workers in a week. However, people told us they knew who was coming to support them in advance and were happy with the care provided.

Most people had a small team of care professionals who they were able to build trusting relationships with. The rota manager tried to match care workers to people using the service to promote good relationships. People said, “They are very kind, they [care workers] can’t do enough for me”, “They are extremely nice to me, they [care workers] always ask if I need anything else doing” and “Yes they support me in a caring and supportive way, they keep me going.”

Care workers were well trained and competent in their roles. Staff undertook training in health and safety subjects and received the training and information they needed to meet people’s specific needs. Training needs were linked to regular care worker competency ‘spot checks’ and supervisions. People told us they felt safe and comfortable with the care workers who supported them and able to discuss any concerns with the office staff. One person said, “They [care workers] do make sure I am safe when moving around, as I can’t see very well.”

Where people received support with medication this was well managed and monitored. Staff had been trained in managing medication and records were completed. Care plans showed how staff were to support people in detail.

People described the service as reliable, telling us that care workers arrived on time and stayed for the allocated amount of time. The office computer system alerted office staff to any late calls as care workers were required to log in on visit arrival and departure. People told us there had never been a missed call and care workers who came were as stated on their rotas.

There was a robust recruitment process to ensure people were protected and cared for by suitable staff. Safeguarding training was completed and staff knew how to recognise and report and action any safeguarding issues to protect people.