Alcester Home Care Agency Ltd Also known as Alcester Primary Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. Leaders and staff contributed to a culture focused on providing good care to people.

The provider had made changes to the care staff team and the management at the agency. The provider recognised changes were required and these were taken to improve the culture at the service. The provider said they were proud of their staff team, and the culture was improving because of the changes implemented. The provider believed staff were committed to delivering a service they could be proud of. Overall, staff and leaders demonstrated a positive, compassionate, listening culture, that was focused on learning and improvement. However, this was not reflected in relation to the communication around the recent staff changes. The provider reflected on our feedback and has put measures in place to ensure people are informed about changes that affect them, more effectively.

Staff were complimentary about the agency and culture at the service. Staff said they got on well, communicated effectively and all wanted to do their best for those they cared for. One staff member told us they enjoyed working for the agency because it was good and commented, “The office staff are a real support, and the management is lovely.”

The provider did not have inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders needed to improve their skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively.

People and relatives were not aware who was the manager given the recent changes within the service. One relative said, “The new manager seems fairly pleasant to me and listens to me but sometimes I feel she says things just to keep the peace. I'm holding judgement at the moment because I feel very unsettled about how everything's been changed.” Another person said, “I have not met or spoken to [Registered manager] but I do get a feeling that she has caused a lot of issues with all the change that's happened and carers that have left.”It was clear from people and relatives’ comments, senior staff were approachable, considerate and supportive when people and relatives contacted the office. People’s feedback to us showed there was confusion around recent staff changes which made them question the leadership at the service.

The registered manager appointed in December 2025 to the service, had experience of working in the care sector and had begun to identify where improvements were required. The provider who was also a registered manager with us and had been for some time, recognised where they needed to drive improvements around communication with those people they supported when changes occur. Staff we spoke with were positive about working for Alcester Home Care. One staff member said, “It’s lovely, the best job is we can visit lovely people in their own home, and the office staff are a real support.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff we spoke with were confident to raise any concerns and they knew who to speak to and how to do this. One staff member said, “Management are lovely, I have never felt I couldn’t talk to them.” Staff said communication was good and they felt supported by office staff, when they were delivering care in people’s homes. No staff we spoke with had needed to raise concerns but if they did, they felt confident their concerns would be heard and acted upon.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The provider told us staff issues had caused some concern, and this had recently been addressed. The provider valued their workforce. The provider was considering ‘contracted employment’ for staff rather than all staff being on zero hours contracts because they wanted to show commitment and that their staff were valued. Staff said they had consistency in who they supported which meant staff had flexibility to work around their shifts. Staff we spoke with said Alcester Home Care was a good agency to work for and they felt supported through their training and had opportunities to share any concerns or feedback.

The provider did not always have clear systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes.

The provider had a system of quality assurance that included oversight by the provider and management team. This included checks of medicines administration, care records, staff recruitment processes and spot checks of staff practice. Those checks also looked at trends across punctuality of care calls, late arrivals and continuity.

Checks and audits were mostly generated reports through the provider’s electronic systems. Some of those reports did show positive progress and improvement. For example, in identifying people who could self-administer their own medicines or care plans that required updating. However, it was not always easy to identify what was checked or how the effectiveness of improvements had been monitored. For example, the registered manager said they had implemented additional records for staff to complete when applying pain patch medicines. The registered manager said they introduced this 2 months ago yet had not checked to make sure the records were being completed correctly. We found staff were not applying pain patch medicines in line with manufacturer instructions and there was gaps in recording. This demonstrated actions were put in place but there was limited or no evidence of follow up to check improvements were made.

We checked examples of audits and found they did not always find the specific issues we found, such as with medicines, daily record completion and care planning. We found some of the regular checks needed to be developed further to become effective when identifying improvements.

People and relatives said they were not always included in care reviews and were not always asked to provide feedback that could feed into driving improvements. However, people and relatives felt confident to raise any concerns.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Processes for working with and alongside other health and social care professionals were considered and where those were in place, staff documented the support they provided to show people’s overall health and wellbeing was maintained.

Staff recognised the importance of family members and involved families when required to keep them updated. Relatives told us staff were good at keeping them informed.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider welcomed the inspection and through the process, the provider was considering how they worked now and how they could work in the future to continue to benefit people’s positive outcomes. The provider and staff welcomed different ways of looking at how they did things, whilst having confidence in the recent changes to improve the culture and service. There were evidence of regular spot checks of staff practice, supervision records and competency checks to ensure staff continually applied safe practices. Ongoing learning and training supported this. Staff said the agency was good to work for. Staff felt able to provide the quality of care they wanted, and they felt they made a difference to people’s lives. We were told about examples where staff went the extra mile to support people and to enrich their lives.