• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Angelica Care Ltd

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

1 & 2 The Parade, Pagham, Bognor Regis, PO21 4TW (01243) 859876

Provided and run by:
Angelica Care Ltd

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

About the service

Angelica Care Ltd is a home care service, providing support and personal care to people in their own homes.

Who the service is for

This service supports older people and people with physical disabilities who are living in their own homes.

Key findings
We carried out this assessment on 6 August 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.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.
People were kept safe by knowledgeable staff who had access to systems and processes to manage care safely. Care plans were recorded on an electronic system which was accessible by staff via mobile phones. The management team were in the process of changing to a new system to improve accessibility and better connectivity for real time updates. Senior staff assessed risk when people started using the service, carrying out meetings with people and families. Staff continued to report any change to risk during visits, for example environmental risks. A staff member told us, “We look out for risk all the time, and if we see anything we will call the office and they will speak to the family or social services to get it fixed.” Staff were well trained and knew people well, all the staff we spoke to were confident people who used the service were safe. Staff told us if they called the office, the response was quick and effective. Staff understood who to contact in the event of an emergency, and the service reported safeguarding concerns appropriately. People were encouraged to manage their own medicine needs where possible, to maintain independence, however if necessary staff were trained to administer medicines, or assist people with their medicines.
People had person centred care plans which were tailored for individuals. Initial assessments were carried out by senior staff and included any relevant health care professional’s input such as occupational therapists. Staff were trained in treating people with dignity and respect and told us how they frequently checked for consent during care.
People and their families were involved in the creation of the care plan and any changes needed. People were encouraged to remain as independent as possible, and staff were able to assist people to go out and visit local areas or shops to ensure people were not isolated.
Staff were well trained. They told us, “There is an abundance of training.” Some training was via an online portal, but staff were also trained in person for relevant issues such as moving and handling of people or first aid. Staff told us they had training in the equipment they used.
Staff told us the service was good. They said they knew the senior staff and that staff in the office were responsive when called for information. Some staff said that they found travel time between calls could be shorter than necessary, but they were usually able to manage their timetable. Staff told us they were asked for their opinions about the service at supervisions and via staff surveys. Staff said the training was good and they felt confident in their roles. The registered manager told us that diversity in the workforce was a strength and they endeavoured to match staff to people to help with companionship as well as care.
The registered manager was well supported by the provider and a deputy manager. Office based administration staff were knowledgeable about the people the service supported, and they also provided care to people occasionally to ensure this knowledge was practical as well as theoretical.
 

13 March 2018

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on the 13 and 14 March 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours' notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure the registered manager would be available for the inspection.

This was the first inspection of this service since they registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. It provides a service to people with varying levels of need, including older people, people living with dementia and mental health, physical disability and sensory impairment.

There was a registered manager at this 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Angelica Care Limited provides personal care services to people living in the Bognor Regis and Chichester areas. Companionship and domestic support can also be provided. Not everyone using Angelica Care Limited received 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 take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection, 36 people were receiving personal care services from the agency.

People received a safe service and were protected from the risks of abuse. Staff received appropriate training and knew how to raise concerns if they felt people were at risk of being abused or mistreated.

People’s individual needs and any identified risks to them and staff were assessed and managed effectively. People who were living with disability that made communication difficult for them were supported to communicate effectively by staff. Various communication aids were used, which included large print records, picture boards and staff were able to adapt their communication style to suit people’s needs accordingly, such as asking simpler questions for those who may be living with cognitive difficulties. People were involved in the planning and review of their care. Medicines were given safely to people with medicines prescribed on an ‘As required’ (PRN) basis being given when people needed them. Staff used appropriate protective equipment such as gloves and aprons which kept people safe from the risks of infection.

There were enough staff to meet the needs of people. Technology was used effectively to schedule visits to people in their homes. The electronic system was also used to monitor actions taken by the agency in relation to the care of people which ensured that the service provided to people was monitored closely. This system also enabled the registered manager to observe the safety and whereabouts of staff while lone working.

People received care from staff who had undertaken training to be able to meet their individual needs and preferences, which included having enough to eat and drink. Staff were recruited safely. Checks were completed by senior staff which ensured staff performance and competence was closely monitored. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive ways possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People told us that staff were caring and kind in their approach and that staff treated them with dignity and respect. Staff were aware of how to protect people’s privacy which ensured this was maintained. At times staff provided support to people that we were told was above and beyond the expectations of a healthcare professional.

Systems and processes were used effectively to monitor the quality and safety of the service. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint should they need to. Complaints were addressed and handled appropriately and promptly to the satisfaction of the complainant.

At the time of this inspection the agency weren’t actively supporting people at the end of their lives. However, the office manager had received training from a local hospice regarding effective end of life care for people and the registered manager was able to tell us how they would support people and their families to receive personalised end of life care using advance care planning. We spoke with a healthcare professional who provided a very positive example of how the registered manager had gone above and beyond to support a person and their family at the end of their lives. Appropriate documentation was seen for those people who did not wish to be resuscitated which ensured that people received the end of life care they wanted or that was required in their best interests.

The service was well-led, with a clear management structure and open, friendly culture among the staff working for the agency.