The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

My Homecare Crowborough

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

1st, 2nd & 3rd Floor, 2 The Broadway, Crowborough, TN6 1DF (01892) 653326

Provided and run by:
Budden Care Ltd

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 28 May 2025 to the 29 May 2025. My Homecare Crowborough is a domiciliary care service providing support to people in their own homes. The Care Quality Commission only regulates services providing personal care and not everyone supported was in receipt of personal care. The service supported 153 people, 150 of whom were in receipt of personal care.

We undertook this full assessment due to the age of the previous rating for this service. We needed to make sure that people were being supported safely. We did not find any concerns or ongoing risk at this assessment.

People were supported by a staff team trained in all key areas who had the skills to provide the care needed to people safely and efficiently. People were safe and protected from risks and harm that could be avoided. Staff had been trained in infection prevention and control and in the administration of medicines. The service managed care call times and continuity of carers attending the same people however, some people told us this was inconsistent and that sometimes staff did not remain for all of the allotted call time.

A thorough pre-assessment process was completed before anyone new started being supported by the service. People were supported by the service and liaison with other professionals was positive, resulting in a good standard of care for people. Some people were supported with their nutrition and hydration needs but some people told us that food was not always prepared to their liking. Staff had been trained in mental capacity awareness and knew the importance of gaining consent from people. Despite this mental capacity assessments had not been regularly reviewed and there was a lack of staff trained to complete assessments. This was raised with the registered manager who undertook to resolve this issue.

Staff were kind and treated people in a dignified way, respecting privacy and treating them as individuals according to their support needs. Independence with tasks and activities was encouraged and supported. The registered manager and wider management team had a strong ethos of supporting staff being mindful of their welfare and any caring or other needs they may have.

Care was person centred in terms of delivery from staff. Some care plans lacked some detail about specific support but this again was immediately addressed by the registered manager. People and their loved ones were able to raise concerns, issues or complaints and told us they were confident that the service would respond in a timely way. People were supported with communication and staff knew people well and were aware of people’s preferences, likes, dislikes and preferred routines. People were treated fairly and all of their needs were met regardless of their background, culture or religious beliefs.

The registered manager was approachable and available to people and the wider management team supported with receiving calls from families and arranging care call times. The registered manager maintained oversight of the service through an efficient auditing process. There was a culture of continuous improvement and learning at the service. The service supported a diverse staffing team where people from different cultures and backgrounds and beliefs were supported and respected.

24 January 2018

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place between 24 and 30 January 2018. The agency provided 36 people with a domiciliary service, for approximately 347 hours a week. Domiciliary care is a service where people are provided with personal care in their own homes. Many of the people were older persons, some people also lived with long-term medical conditions. People received a range of different support. Some people needed frequent visits, including visits several times a day, this could include two members of staff and the use of equipment to support their mobility. Some people needed support with medicines and meals preparation. Services were provided to people who lived in the East Sussex town of Crowborough and the surrounding villages.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has been 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 provider for the agency is Budden Care Ltd, this is their only registered service. The service is provided as part of a franchise for My Homecare Limited, a national provider of care.

This was the service’s first inspection since it was registered in February 2017. At this inspection, the service was rated as Good, with Requires Improvement under well-led.

Issues relating to the appropriate timing of visits to people, including travel time for staff between calls were identified. A phone app, used by staff and linked to the service’s computer system was in the process of being introduced which would enable analysis of such matters. Once these systems were fully operational, management would be able to review relevant information and identify areas for service improvement. There were also some issues relating to recording of certain information about people’s care needs. Some issues had been identified and improvements were being progressed. Other information would be improved once the phone app was fully operational and used by all staff.

People were safeguarded against risk, including risk of abuse. The registered manager performed a full assessment of people’s needs before they agreed to provide them with a service. People had relevant risk assessments completed. Where risk was identified care plans, which were regularly reviewed, were put in place to reduce risk. Staff knew about how to ensure people’s safety, including safety from risk of abuse. Where people used equipment, staff used it safely.

Where people needed support with medicines, this was done in a safe way. Staff completed relevant records about supporting people with medicines. These were regularly reviewed by management. Where people needed support to eat and drink, people had care plans, which staff followed, so their needs were met.

Staff understood the principals of prevention of risk of infection. Staff said they had ample supplies of items such as disposable gloves. Staff followed the provider’s policies and procedures when they were with people in their own homes.

There were enough staff to ensure people did not experience missed or shortened visits. Staff had been recruited in a safe way to ensure new members of staff were safe to support people.

Staff were supported by the agency so they had the skills they needed to meet their individual needs. This was through the provider’s ongoing induction and training programmes. The performance of staff was also regularly monitored, including when they worked with people in their own homes.

People were supported with accessing relevant external professionals, including their GPs and district nurses. People told us the agency supported them appropriately when they needed additional support, including in the event of an emergency.

Staff understood the importance of gaining people’s consent to care. Where relevant, people had mental capacity assessments completed, and best interests meetings were recorded.

People commented on the kindness, compassion and respect they received from staff. They also said staff encouraged them in remaining as independent as they wished to be. Staff supported people and their relatives in a kindly and supportive way. Staff clearly knew people as individuals, taking their preferences into account when providing care.

People told us they received a responsive service from staff, who knew them well. Staff told us people’s care plans informed them of how each person wanted to have their individual needs met. Care plans about people’s personal care needs were clear and up-dated when people’s needs changed.

People said they felt confident if they raised complaints or concerns, these would be responded to. Records showed the registered manager followed the provider’s complaints policy.

People commented positively on the management of the agency. Staff told us about the agency’s positive culture. Managers were keen to make improvements and ensure people’s needs were met. The provider had a system for regular audit of the service provided. If matters were identified, action was taken to address issues.