Caroline Cares for You Ltd

Updated 7 May 2026

We started the assessment on 13 May 2026, visiting the office on 18 May 2026, and people using the service at their homes on 28 May 2026.

We reviewed documents and had follow up contact with the provider, finishing the assessment on 10 June 2026.

The reason for the assessment, was because we had not assessed this service in several years, and they had an aged rating.

The provider runs a homecare service, which means they delivered care to people within their own homes, often for only short periods, multiple times a day. The provider also provided live-in care which meant people had staff staying with them 24 hours a day, for weeks at a time.

The service provides the regulated activity of personal care to most people using the service. We only viewed information relating to people receiving this regulated activity. At the time of commencement of our assessment, there were 32 people receiving support with this regulated activity from the provider.

We found that the provider was not fulfilling their duties in response to safeguarding concerns, accidents, incidents and events. Care providers are required to notify the CQC of certain events, including falls or injuries, to people using the service. We had received no statutory notifications within the year leading up to the assessment, but found on reviewing their records, multiple events which the CQC should have been notified about.

Additionally, many of these events also raised safeguarding concerns. Whilst the provider took action to safeguard people internally, they did not report the concerns to relevant Local Authorities, in line with their statutory duties.

We found that risks were not thoroughly assessed, which meant that people were at risk of harm.

In practice, care was person centred, and people were happy with the care they received. This was mainly due to long standing staff members building up knowledge of people using the service and tailoring their care to each person. We found that documents such as care plans were not person centred and lacked specific guidance on how people liked their care. This meant people may not experience care in the way they want it, consistently, particularly if there were new or unfamiliar staff providing care to people.

We identified some issues with practice, in regard to medication and consent. Managers and leaders completed audits, which were not always regular, fit for purpose or completed effectively, which meant the provider was not aware of the issues with some of their practice.

Staff felt their wellbeing was respected, upheld and they felt appreciated and supported. External professionals were very positive about the service and staff. One professional told us, “I feel that as an agency the carers go above and beyond to ensure clients are well cared for. I also have excellent feedback from patients on my caseload who use this agency”.

Updated 7 May 2026

People and relatives told us they were happy with the care the staff provided. Many told us they felt very involved in theirs, or their relatives care, however, there was room for improvement to ensure this was evidenced and documented as we were unable to find much evidence of how people were involved in the formulation and review of their care.

People and relatives spoke highly of the staff and managers. One person told us “if I could take them all out for a meal, I would. They do amazing work.”

A relatives told us “I feel the carers are there for us as much as they are for [person] when I need them.”

Relatives felt that staff seem to be well trained and qualified to support their relatives, however, we found gaps in training, some of which had expired over 6 months ago, which had not been identified and addressed by the provider until we completed our assessment.

We were able to observe interactions between staff and people using the service, and found that staff were treating people with kindness and compassion. This was also reflected in people’s feedback.

People received the care hours they were scheduled to receive, and on occasion, received in excess of this. People told us that very rarely, staff might be late for their scheduled care visits, however were always apologetic and did not cut their care short as a result of this.

We found that people did not have access to their care plans or other documentation and not all information was available in an accessible format, however, this had not impacted anyone using the service at the time of our assessment.