- Homecare service
A2L Care Services
Assessment report published 2 September 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
We carried out this assessment on 30 June 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
A2L Care Services Limited provided safe, consistent, and person-centred care. The service was small and the provider knew each person well and had a good overview of the care and support they received.
People were supported by a regular team of staff who had positive relationships with them, understood their individual needs, and delivered care in a way that promoted continuity and reassurance. A staff member told us, “[Person] doesn’t like change, such as an emergency carer, so we keep to the same carers and relief carers as much as possible.”
Staff knew how to keep people safe and who to contact if they had concerns about their well-being. Safety incidents were investigated and the findings shared with the local authority. Lessons were learned where necessary and discussed with staff so they could continually improve their practice.
People had detailed care plans and risk assessments, so staff knew how to support them safely and effectively. These were regularly reviewed and updated as people’s needs changed. People and relatives had the opportunity to contribute, where appropriate, when care plans and risk assessments were written and discussed.
There were enough staff employed to ensure people’s needs were met. Some improvements were needed to staff files to ensure the correct documentation was in place and signed where necessary.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.
Staff had regular training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge they needed to support people safely and effectively. Some training, for example moving and handling, was specific to the person in question and provided by local occupational therapists. Staff worked effectively with health and social care professionals and ensured people had medical assistance if they needed it.
The staff were caring, kind and thoughtful and these values were re-enforced throughout their training. A staff member told us, “My learning helps me approach [my work] with love, it has opened my eyes. I love doing this, I have a passion for looking after [older people].”
Care plans and records showed staff enabling people to remain independent and ensuring they had choice and control when staff supported them. Outcomes were good with people’s quality of life improving when they used the service. A staff member told us, “I have seen tremendous change in [person]. My notes show huge improvement in [person’s health condition], they are calmer, talking to others, and building their self-esteem.”
People’s care and support was provided in line with legal requirements, including those relating to equality and human rights. People chose the gender of their staff and were supported with their hobbies, interests and spiritual needs. Staff had the equipment they needed to ensure people with physical and other needs could access the community safely.
If people or relatives had concerns about the quality of the care provided, they could use the service’s complaints procedure or speak directly to the provider whose telephone number they had. The provider was always keen to address any concerns and willing to visit people to discuss with them how best to resolve these and make improvements where necessary.
Improvements were needed to the provider’s audit system. Although audits were regularly carried out there was no fixed schedule of audit. This made it difficult to understand when and how often audits should be completed.
All staff spoke highly of the support they received from the provider and were satisfied with their training and supervision. A staff member told us, “[The support I get] has given me a higher level of understanding about [person’s] condition and I am now able to put myself in their shoes.” Staff said they got an immediate response if they needed management support. A staff member said the provider sorted out issues ‘very quickly’ and would immediately drive to where care was being provided to assist staff who needed support, regardless of the distance.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 1 person and 5 relatives by telephone to get their views on the service.
Everyone we spoke with said people were safe using the service. They told us staff were on-time and no missed calls or shortened visits were reported. They said they had regular staff who they knew well and who knew them. They told us staff dressed professionally and used PPE [personal protective equipment] effectively and appropriately. No issues with medication were reported.
A person said, “The staff are very friendly and yes, I feel safe with them. They help me with a lot of things. I like having them around.” A relative told us, “My [relative] definitely feels safe with the staff and likes them coming.” People mostly had the same staff caring for them. A relative said, “It's good continuity of care.”
People and relatives were extremely satisfied with the staff team and their ability to provide personalised care and support. A relative said, “They [staff] know about [person] and what [person] needs more than I do so yes, we do feel [person] is very safe with them. They are our eyes and ears.”
Relatives said staff supported people with their healthcare needs, liaised well with other services, and dealt with changes in health needs appropriately. They told us staff supported people with complex needs and assisted them to manage their nutrition and hydration needs. They said staff had the necessary training and skills to support them and meet their needs.
A relative told us, “They [staff] phone the GP if they suspect any changes [to person’s healthcare needs]. They always let us know. We trust them fully and they also know what they are doing. The level of care has been exceptional.” Another relative said, “The staff are very on the ball with [person’s] healthcare. They don't delay if there is anything they are concerned about.”
Relatives described staff as kind, caring, and friendly, and said that having a consistent team of staff enabled people to develop positive relationships and good rapport with those supporting them. Relatives also felt that people were encouraged to make their own choices and decisions wherever possible, helping to promote their independence and autonomy.
Relatives gave examples of staff going above and beyond to support to enrich their lives. They said staff encouraged people to pursue their hobbies and interests. A relative told us, “[Person] likes [particular sport on television] and now the carers have got into it too so they can all watch it together.”
Another relative praised staff for adapting the way they communicated to meet their family member’s needs, making it easier for them to engage and respond. This was an example of staff members’ commitment to providing personalised, compassionate support that reflected people’s individual preferences.
Relatives were confident that if they needed to raise any concerns with the service, they would be listened to and action taken. They said care plans were updated in line with people’s changing needs. They told us feedback on the care and support provided was gathered as a continuous conversation rather than a specific questionnaire or feedback interview.
Relatives used a secure messaging service to keep in contact with staff and access people’s records, were appropriate. A relative said, “Staff file notes on an app on their phones but I haven't felt that I needed to access this information as I trust them fully and we are in good contact all the time.” Another relative told us, “We’re in a [messaging] group with the carers. They don't need permission to contact the GP etc, but they always let us know.”
Relatives said they got on well with the managers and reported timely and effective communication. A relative commented, “We have lots of dialogue and communication with them and they are always checking that we are happy with everything.” They said the staff team worked well together and the organisation retained staff. All said they would recommend the service to others.
A relative told us, “I have very good communication with the managers. They were so good when [person] was discharged from hospital and so lovely with us when everything was so chaotic and distressing. I would 100% recommend them and if I was ever ill myself, I would make sure they were the agency I contacted.” Another relative commented, “We are very happy with the care and would definitely recommend this agency and feel that it is very well led.”