- Homecare service
Bestchoice Global Ltd
Assessment report published 19 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
The service is a domiciliary care agency providing support to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 4 people were using the service.The service supports younger adults and older people with dementia and physical disabilities.
We carried out this assessment on 22 September 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Right support, right care, right culture is the statutory guidance which supports CQC to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people. We considered this guidance as the service is registered for people who have a learning disability and/or who are autistic. However, at the time of inspection the service did not support anyone who had a learning disability or were autistic.
There were systems in place to promote a learning culture. For example, accidents and incidents were viewed to see what could be learned to prevent future such incidents occurring. People were protected from the risk of abuse through appropriate procedures and staff training. Risk assessments were in place for people which included information about how to support people in a safe way. Various checks were carried out to help ensure the premises were safe, for example, on fire safety systems. There were enough staff to support people and robust staff recruitment practices were in place. Medicines were mostly managed in a safe way. However, medicine administration records were not always maintained for medicines prescribed on an ‘as required’ basis.
People’s needs were assessed and care plans were in place. People were involved in developing their care plans to ensure they reflected what was important to them. People’s care was monitored, for example, through daily records and care plans were subject to review. This meant they continued to reflect people’s needs as they changed over time. People were able to consent to their care and had the capacity to make decisions for themselves.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. No one was subject to a DoLS authorisation.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Their independence and choice were promoted. Staff told us how they helped people in a caring way that respected their privacy and enabled them to make choices.
People received person-centred care, care plans were based around the needs of individuals. They were involved in planning their own care. They were involved in their care plan reviews and regular resident’s meetings were held. People had access to various community services, these included social and leisure activities and relevant healthcare professionals.
There was a registered manager in place who was also the owner of the business. Staff spoke positively about the management and the working atmosphere at the service. A member of staff said, “[Registered manager] is a down-to-earth person, they listen when we raise questions and they are caring.” Various quality assurance and monitoring systems were in place. For example, audits, surveys and staff meetings. Staff were supported to develop in their role and had access to regular training and 1 to 1 supervision meetings with their manager.
People's experience of this service
During our inspection of the service we reviewed people’s records, including their care plans and risk assessments. After our site visit, we spoke with 3 of the 4 people using the service by telephone and we also spoke with the next of kin for the other person. Overall, people expressed satisfaction with their care and support. A person said, “The service is very good. They [staff] are very nice people. They treat me very well. I have no problems with them at all.”
Care was provided in line with people’s preferences. Care plans were person-centred and people were involved in developing them. A person said, “They did an assessment [of person’s needs] with me.” A relative said, “They [senior staff] completed a care plan, myself and my partner were involved in that.” Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and how to meet them.
People were supported to make choices, for example, people were also able to choose the gender of their care staff. People and relatives told us they were able to make choices. A person said, “They [staff] put the clothes out for me, the ones I want.” A relative told us a person was able to make all choices about how their care was delivered, saying, “[Person] is quite firm about that [making their own choices]. They feel they have responsibility and choice over their daily routine.”
People’s independence was promoted. Care plans included information about what people could do for themselves and what the required support with. Staff told us how they supported people to maintain their independence where possible. People confirmed this was the case. A relative said, “The carers support [person] to do things where they are able. [Person] still likes to brush their teeth.” A person told us, “They [staff] help me with the things I can’t do.”
Staff interacted with people in a kind and caring way. People told us staff treated them well. A person said, “The carers are polite, they talk to me, they ask me if I am all right.” A relative told us, “The staff that come are just brilliant, there is a real level of compassion. They sit and chat with [person]. [Person] talks to them about what they are interested in.”
Staff had a good understanding of how to protect people’s privacy and treat them with dignity. Staff had undertaken training about this and were able to tell us how the promoted this. A member of staff said, “I greet them when I get there. I ask if they want to have a shower and I make sure the bathroom door is closed.”
People experienced a service that was supportive and responsive to their needs. They told us they had regular contact with the registered manager. A person said, “[Registered manager] has come to see me a few times. They are always nice to me. They ask about the carers and if I am OK.” A relative told us at one time there was an issue with new staff not fully understanding how to support the person. They said they raised this with the registered manager and said, “The staff got the training [they needed] and it was fine. It was resolved very quickly. It’s the only time we had a problem.”