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

Amazed Care Services

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

5 Church Walk, Chertsey, KT16 8RE (01932) 541082

Provided and run by:
Miss Alison June Rodford

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Amazed Care Services is a domiciliary care provider providing personal care to people in their own homes.

The service provides support to people living with dementia, those with health conditions and people who are at the end of their life. It can also provide support to younger people and people with a learning disability and/or autistic people.

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. At the time of the assessment, the service was not supporting any autistic people or people with a learning disability, but the provider had regard to ‘Right support, right care, right culture’. The registered manager told us, “We have done the relevant training so we are aware of what is needed.”

When we visited, the service were providing a regulated activity to 11 people.

We carried out this assessment on 29 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.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where people may need to be deprived of their liberty in order to receive care and treatment in their own homes, the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards cannot be used. Instead, an application can be made to the Court of Protection who can authorise deprivations of liberty. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and found it was. The registered manager told us, “We are currently going through the process with [person’s name] trying to get Court of Protection. Their social worker is trying to do a mental capacity assessment with them.”

The registered manager had good systems and processes in place to help ensure people received person-centred, individualised care that focused on the person and their needs. Staff took a holistic approach in relation to the care they provided. This included taking a person to a restaurant where they could communicate with staff in a language familiar to them, helping to make the experience personal and meaningful.

People’s wellbeing was improved through staff input. For example, staff were providing 1 person with a cleaning call only but they noticed the person was not eating well. This resulted in them requesting an additional call from the funding authority so staff could prompt and encourage the person to eat to improve their health. The registered manager told us, “At our last team meeting we talked about standard of care. I want everyone to do the same thing, especially when caring for someone receiving end of life care. We are devoted to this and staff see that and follow by example.”

Staff worked closely with external agencies and professionals, such as the local hospice and the district nursing team, pharmacy and GP, to support people’s care. Where 1 person was in increased pain, the registered manager arranged with the local pharmacy to collect medication on a Sunday to make the person more comfortable. Professionals told us they were happy with the service and they had good relationships with them.

Accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns were reported and reviewed for lessons learnt and information shared with the whole staff team where relevant. A staff member said, “If you’re not happy (with something), you have to talk to the manager as it’s only going to get worse.” Another told us, “I rely a lot on what I am seeing. We get to know our clients very well and we can pick up on small changes.”

Environmental checks were carried out during the pre-assessment process to ensure that people lived in a safe environment and staff took action when necessary. This included contacting the fire service to provide advice and guidance.

Staff received induction, shadowing support and training before working alone. They also had the opportunity to meet with the registered manager on a one-to-one basis through supervisions. They told us, “Every new client we have to go with one of the managers. They shadow us in” and “I feel confident through the training and the staff (support).”

Staff said they had enough time at people’s calls and that there was sufficient travelling time to help ensure they arrived at their next call when expected. We were told, “We are not rushed” and “More than enough time.”

Staff were recruited through good processes which included them providing evidence of performance in previous employment and evidence of their right to work in the UK. Each prospective staff member underwent a Disclosure Barring Service check to help ensure they were suitable to work in this type of service.

Where risks were identified for people, staff took extra precautions to help ensure people were kept safe. This included reminding people to use mobility aids when moving around, using the correct equipment when repositioning people and ensuring people’s medicines were administered correctly and in line with the prescription instructions.

People’s care plans held detailed information about their needs, preferred routines and how staff were meant to provide the care. Care plans were reviewed regularly by staff to help ensure they remained current and relevant. A staff member said, “We always have to go back and look at care plans. It gives you the basic run down. Especially with medication, you don’t want to mess that up.”

Staff enjoyed working at the service. They said there was good teamwork and that the registered manager was supportive. We were told, “We have regular supervisions. It’s good to have feedback, especially if you need to work on things”, “We all listen to each other and help each other” and “[Registered manager] is a very good manager and boss. She is very good at reading people. It’s the reason I joined the company. Interviews don’t feel like an interview. It’s a chat but she’s asking questions she needs to ask.”

The registered manager was continuously learning and seeking advice from peers through agencies such as Skills for Care and the Surrey Skills Academy. They told us, “We have a group for care manager’s and we can go to registered managers meetings, etc.

22 March 2018

During a routine inspection

Amazed Care Services is a domiciliary care agency which provides care and support to people in their own homes. It provides a service to older adults, people with physical disabilities, younger adults and people who have a mental health or learning disability condition. The agency had a total of 12 clients of whom 11 received the regulated activity of personal care.

The inspection took place on 22 March 2018 and was announced. We gave the provider three days’ notice of this inspection in order that they could arrange home visits and telephone interviews for us. It also meant they could be available in the office to assist us with the inspection. This is our methodology for inspecting this type of service. The service did not require a registered manager. This is because it is run by an individual. The registered provider (provider) assisted us with our inspection.

People were supported by kind and caring staff. People had positive relationships with their care workers and enjoyed their company. Relatives said staff treated their family members with respect and provided care and support in a sensitive way. People and their relatives were encouraged to be involved in planning their care.

There were sufficient numbers of trained staff employed to meet the agency’s care commitments. The agency ensured that people received a safe and reliable service. People were helped to stay safe because staff understood people’s needs and any risks involved in their care. Relatives were confident their family members were safe when receiving their care. There was a contingency plan in place to ensure people would continue to receive their care in the event of bad weather. People who would be most at risk were prioritised. Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed by the provider and reflective learning was used to learn from incidents.

Where people’s care involved support with medicines, this was managed safely. Staff helped people keep their homes clean and hygienic. Staff understood the risk of spreading infection and as such wore personal protective equipment.

People’s needs were assessed before they used the service to ensure the agency could provide the care they needed. Staff told us they were introduced to new people before they provided their care. People said their care workers always stayed for the allocated length of their visits.

Staff received the training and support they needed to do their jobs. Staff received regular refresher training and were supported through regular supervisions. Staff attended safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities in terms of recognising and reporting abuse. People were protected by the provider’s recruitment procedures. The provider carried out checks to ensure they employed only suitable staff.

People’s care was provided in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff had received training on the MCA and understood how it applied in their work. People had recorded their consent to their care.

Staff were aware of people’s individual dietary requirements and provided appropriate foods. Staff monitored people’s healthcare needs and responded appropriately if people became unwell.

People received a service that was responsive to their individual needs. Each person had a care plan. Care plans provided guidance for staff and were reviewed regularly to ensure they continued to reflect people’s needs. People’s histories were included in their care plans which helped staff provide responsive care.

People knew how to complain if they were dissatisfied. People and relatives told us they felt they were listened to and the agency were good at communicating with them. They said they felt the agency was well led and that staff were their friends.

The service was managed effectively, which ensured people received safe and well-planned care. The provider sought feedback from people who used the service through annual surveys. Where people made comments, these were acted upon.

Staff told us the provider supported them and made them feel valued. Staff also said they worked well together as a team to meet people’s needs. Team meetings took place regularly and were used to reinforce key messages.

The provider’s monitoring systems helped ensure people received a good quality of care that met their needs. The provider regularly observed staff practice at spot checks and carried out monthly audits of daily notes and medicines administration records.

The provider had good working relationships with other professionals involved in people’s care and they kept up to date with good practices through training and professional journals.