Updated 20 May 2026
Date of inspection: 3 June 2026 to 15 July 2026
Blue Sapphire care limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. Not everyone using the service received a regulated activity; CQC only inspects when people are provided with 'personal care'. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of this inspection, 23 people were receiving personal care from the service.
The inspection was announced and took place as part of our regular monitoring role. This was a comprehensive inspection and included all the quality statements across our five key questions.
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 inspection identified that the provider was in breach of 2 legal regulations relating to good governance and safe care and treatment. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this inspection.
The provider’s governance systems and processes for assessing, monitoring and reviewing the quality and safety of the service were not fully effective. Although no one had come to harm, the inspection identified areas where improvement was required. The registered manager acknowledged the identified shortfalls.
Staff were recruited safely. Staff received an induction and ongoing training, and staff told us they felt well supported.
Medicines optimisation required improvement. PRN (as required) protocols were not in place for people prescribed these medicines, and medicine audits were not being completed. However, staff knew people well, which helped reduce risks associated with medicines management.
Care plan and risk assessment guidance for staff required improvements in some areas. We concluded this was a recording and oversight issue and the person using the service was supported by an established and experienced staff team who knew them well.
Safeguarding concerns were not recorded in a way that enabled the provider to effectively monitor trends, identify themes or demonstrate learning from incidents. However, staff understood safeguarding procedures and demonstrated a good knowledge of their responsibilities. Staff were confident in recognising potential concerns and knew how to report them appropriately.
Where people lacked capacity to consent to their care and treatment, mental capacity assessments had not always been completed in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.