During an assessment under our new approach
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”.