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

Care Staff Services Ltd

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

Unit 10 Progress Business Centre, Whittle Parkway, Slough, SL1 6DQ (01628) 660083

Provided and run by:
Care Staff Services Ltd

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of assessment: 27 January 2026 to 6 February 2026. We announced the assessment on 26 January 2026 and carried out visits to the office on 27 and 29 January 2026.

The service is a domiciliary care agency and provides personal care to people living in their own homes. Not everyone was receiving personal care. CQC only inspects where people are receiving the regulated activity personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we consider any wider social care provided. At the time of this assessment 108 people were receiving support with personal care.

The assessment was prompted due to ongoing concerns being received regarding the management of the service, and to follow up on our previous assessment completed in June 2025, when the service was rated inadequate. At this assessment we found breaches of 6 regulations relating to person-centred care, gaining consent, safe care and treatment, good governance, staffing and fit and proper persons employed.

Since our last assessment in June 2025, a new Nominated Individual had taken over responsibilities for the service. Following this transition, a new manager was appointed to work alongside the existing management team. However, over a short period of time the majority of the management team had left the service. This meant the new manager and 1 care co-ordinator were left to oversee the care of 108 people. This presented a significant risk due to the manager being relatively new and not being aware of people’s needs, the systems in place or of staff skills and knowledge. Despite these concerns, the provider had failed to implement contingency plans to ensure continued management oversight of the service and robust business continuity plans. This meant there was a risk people would not receive the care they required in the event of further breakdown of the management team or an emergency situation.

There was a lack of quality assurance measures to identify and address concerns and to ensure action was taken. Whilst the manager acknowledged significant improvements to the service were required, the provider had failed to implement an effective and detailed improvement plan to identify shortfalls, prioritise actions and embed learning.

Although people had support plans in place, these lacked guidance for staff regarding people’s care and information about health conditions, communication needs, risks to their safety, and end of life care planning. Information regarding people’s life histories and things which were important to them was not consistently recorded. These concerns presented a barrier to people receiving safe, effective and responsive care from staff they trusted. The provider was not compliant with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People’s capacity to make decisions were not always decision specific and best interests’ decisions were not completed in line with MCA principles.

Recruitment practices were not robust which put people at risk of being supported by staff who were not suitable. Staff felt there had been some improvement in the way the service was managed although there were on-going concerns regarding how they were able to share feedback in a transparent way. The manager told us they were working with staff to establish trust and reporting protocols.

This service remains in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provides 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: 17 June to 19 June 2025. The service is a domiciliary care agency providing care to older people, younger adults, people living with dementia, learning disabilities, mental health conditions, physical disabilities, sensory impairments and substance misuse problems, living in their own homes. This inspection was prompted due to concerns we had received about the management of the service.
This inspection found the provider to be in breach of 6 legal regulations relating to the need for consent, safe care and treatment, safeguarding, governance, staffing and recruitment.
The provider did not have an effective quality assurance and governance system in place. This had resulted in shortfalls that placed the people who use the service at risk of harm. At the time of our visit the service was led by 2 registered managers.
The provider did not ensure all risks to people had been identified and mitigated. Where risks had been identified, the management of them was poor. Care plans lacked detailed information which meant there was a risk people may not be supported according to their needs.
The provider’s recruitment systems and processes were inadequate and not robust to ensure all available information was gathered appropriately, and to confirm fit and proper staff were employed. This meant people were at risk of being supported by unsuitable staff.
We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure 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 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.

9 July 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service:

Care Staff Services Ltd is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection 36 people were being supported with personal care. The main office is based in Burnham.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found:

People and relatives felt safe from harm and were aware of what to do if they felt unsafe. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to protect people from harm and had attended the relevant training. Assessments of people’s care and support needs identified risks to people’s welfare and safety and plans were put in place to manage those risks. There were enough staff to provide care and support to people. Medicines were administered safely, and staff followed infection control practices to protect people from infection. Staff recruitment practices in place ensured people were cared for by staff who were aware of good practice and references were sought. However, job applications were not always fully completed and gaps in employment were not always explained. We have made a recommendation about this in the report.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. People and relatives said consent was sought before care was delivered. The service acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 where people were not able to make specific decisions.

People and relatives spoke positively about the caring nature of staff. A person when commenting about their care worker said, "She is very helpful, calm, friendly, helpful and will go out of the way to help.” A relative when commenting about a care worker said, “She is very friendly and kind, helpful and very good to [name of relative]. She is so caring.” Staff had a good understanding of people’s care needs, family histories and care records showed staff were instructed to deliver care in a person-centred way.

People and relatives felt staff were skilled and experienced to look after them. Staff received appropriate induction, training and supervision. People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met. The service worked with health and social care professionals to ensure people’s health needs were met.

People and relatives said the service assessed their needs before their packages of care started. This ensured the service developed plans of care that was based on what people said they wanted. People and relatives said they were involved in decisions about their care and meetings to review and discuss any changes in their care happened. The service was compliant with the Accessible Information Standard by making sure the communication needs for people with disabilities and sensory impairment were met. People knew how to raise concerns and felt confident to do this. We found complaints were responded to appropriately.

People and relatives felt the service was well-led, staff spoke positively about the culture of the service and said management were approachable. Quality assurance systems in place was improved to enable the service to identify where quality and safety were being compromised. Appropriate action was taken to address any concerns identified however, further work was required to clearly identify themes, trends and lessons learnt. We have made a recommendation about this in the report.

Rating at last inspection and update: The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 4 May 2018). The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

31 January 2018

During a routine inspection

Care Staff Services Ltd is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living with dementia; older people and younger adults living in their own houses in Slough and Buckinghamshire. The service was providing a regulated activity to 19 adults who were using the service at the time of our visit.

The service has a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

This is the first inspection under Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

People and their relatives felt staff were caring, kind and listened to what they had to say. A person commented, “All carers are very friendly. They talk with me and we have a joke.”

People received care from staff that made them and those close to them, feel like they mattered. Staff had established good working relationships with people and their families’. Staff encouraged people to be independent and care records contained information about their personal circumstances and how they wished to be supported. People and their relatives said staff treated them with respect and protected their dignity.

People felt safe when receiving care and support from staff. Safe recruitment practices were in place and people were kept safe from infection. There were safe administration of medicines. We have made a recommendation for the service ensure their medicine policy is updated to reflect NICE (National for Institute for Health and Care Excellence) medicine guidance. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and had attended the relevant training. However; staff did not have access to the service’s safeguarding adult’s policy and the local authority’s specific procedures for reporting and managing safeguarding matters. We have made a recommendation for the service to ensure these policies are easily accessible to staff.

This meant the service did not have appropriate records to assess identified risks and the impact it had on people using the service.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. However, we found senior staff had limited understanding of the MCA and its code of practice.

Staff were not always appropriately inducted; trained and supervised. We found staff did not always receive training; learning and development to enable them to fulfil the requirements of their role. Staff worked within the principles of the Equality Act 2010 to make sure their work practice did not discriminate against people. Peoples’ nutritional needs were met and they had access to other health services.

People and their relative felt the care delivered was responsive and met their specific needs. A relative commented, “I explained what we wanted and they (staff) have followed this.”

People had their needs assessed before and shortly after they joined the service. Care records were person-centred and recorded peoples’ needs and preferences. This did not include their preferences for end of life care. We recommend the service seek current guidance and best practice in relation to people’s end of life preferences and wishes and staff training.

People knew how to raise concerns. We found the service responded to complaints appropriately. The service was not aware of the accessible information standard and their legal responsibility to meet it. We have made a recommendation for the service to seek current guidance and best practice in order to be compliant with the Accessible Information Standard.

People and their relatives felt the service was well-led and staff spoke positively about the support they received from management. People were given the opportunity to express their opinions about different aspects of the service.

Systems and processes in place were not able to help the service identify where quality and safety was being compromised. The service’s statement of purpose (SOP) was not kept under review and, where appropriate, revised. We have made a recommendation for the service to take appropriate action to ensure its SOP is kept up to date.

We found breaches of regulations as a result of this inspection. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.