All inspections: Northamptonshire Domiciliary Care Agency

Date of assessment: 23 June 2026 to 17 July 2026.

This was a fully comprehensive assessment carried out to check on improvements made by the provider since our last assessment in July 2025.

The service provides personal care for younger and older people with a learning disability. The Care Quality Commission [CQC] only inspects services where people receive personal care, this is help with tasks related to personal hygiene. At the time of our assessment, the service was supporting 28 people with personal care in a supported living home with their own tenancy agreement from a landlord.

There was a manager registered with CQC. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC to manage the service. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

We assessed the service against the ‘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.

We found that since our last assessment, there had been positive changes to the leadership, culture and oversight of the service, supported by increased involvement from local leaders. Staff consistently spoke positively about the direction of the service and described leaders as visible, approachable and responsive to feedback. Improvements had been made across the service, including to care plans, risk mitigation plans, staff training and the recording of people’s goals and outcomes.

We identified areas where governance and quality assurance systems had not consistently identified concerns, including aspects of restrictive practice, mental capacity assessments and other records. The provider had developed improvement plans and demonstrated a commitment to learning and continuous improvement. We found further work was required to ensure improvements were fully embedded and sustained across all homes.

We found the service was on a positive improvement journey and leaders had an understanding of the work required to continue improving outcomes for people. We were assured by the vision and improvement plans shared by the registered manager.

At our last assessment the service was rated inadequate and placed in special measures. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made and the service was no longer inadequate overall, in any key question, and was no longer required to be in special measures.

This service has been rated requires improvement overall. We identified an ongoing breach of regulation in relation to good governance. We have asked the provider to submit an action plan in response to the concerns identified during this assessment. We will check on the implementation of these plans at our next assessment.

Date of Assessment: 3 July to 31 July 2025.

We carried out a comprehensive assessment in response to concerns we had about the service.

The service provides personal care for younger and older people with a learning disability. People are supported in a supported living home with their own tenancy agreement from a landlord.

At the time of our assessment there were 30 people being supported with personal care. As part of our onsite assessment activity, we visited the registered office and 10 supported living homes supported by this service.

We assessed the service against the ‘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. We found the provider had failed to meet the principles of this guidance.

People’s needs and risks were not being effectively assessed, and medicines incidents were not managed effectively. People’s Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) were not up to date, and we found people’s medicines were not being managed safely. We also found infection control practices were poor.

Staff did not always understand how to meet people’s current needs because people’s care plans and risk assessments did not provide adequate information and guidance. This meant the provider had failed to have systems in place to ensure staff had all the up-to-date information they needed for people to receive consistent care.

We identified shortfalls in staff supervision and training. One member of staff told us, “I’ve not had one [supervision] for a very long time, I’m not able to recall when I had one in the last 5 years.” Another staff member told us, “We don’t get regular supervision.” We were also told, “I can’t recall getting one [supervision] in the last couple of years,” and “I’ve never been asked about my well-being by a manager.”

Staff told us they did not feel supported by local leaders. A staff member told us, “I think we are under supported here.” We found that visits by service managers had not been supportive and were ineffective. There was a disconnect between support local leaders told us they were delivering and what staff were experiencing. A staff member told us, “Face to face visits would go a long way to improve staff morale.” Another staff member told us, “It would be fair to say that until recently, I did not always feel supported at the local level”. We were also told by a staff member, “Service managers are not always visible” and that, “Visits are often on the doorstep, they say they can’t come in because it’s supported living.”

Some staff told us they did not know who senior leaders responsible for the service were and they didn’t visit homes. A staff member told us, “The [registered] manager never comes here [name of home], and I couldn’t tell you who the regional manager is.” Another staff member shared with us it was a shame a visit from the area and regional manager had only been prompted by the CQC assessment." The provider confirmed that the Regional Operations Manager had visited services on three occasions in 2024 and once in 2025. Visits were also completed in 2025 by the Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Director of Personal Support England. Service managers and support staff had also been invited to roadshows with the senior management team.

The oversight of the service was not adequate. Systems were not robust enough to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service being provided to people. Audits completed were ineffective and systems and processes did not support learning and improvement.

We met with the provider during our assessment to share the concerns we had identified. The provider was receptive to the feedback we shared and sent us an action plan to outline the steps they were taking to improve the oversight of the service and address the shortfalls we had identified. The provider committed to sharing regular updates to demonstrate the improvements being made and told us they were using our findings to reflect how they had not met the standard they expect of their services. The provider also told us they would be using this reflection and learning, to feed into their various committees, to consider what changes needed to be made as a result.

The provider was found to be in breach of 3 legal regulations relating to safe care and treatment, good governance and staffing. Although the provider shared assurances that action was being taken in relation to the findings during our assessment, further work was required ensure these actions lead to sustained change and improvement across the service.

The service has been rated inadequate overall. The service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provides a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.

In instances where CQC have decided to take civic or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded.

At the last comprehensive inspection on 22 and 26 January 2016, the service was rated Good.

At this announced inspection on 21 and 23 May 2018, we found the service remained 'Good'.

This service provides care and support to people living in eight supported living settings so that they can live as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

Northamptonshire Domiciliary Care Agency provides personal care to people living in their own homes or shared accommodation when they are unable to manage their own care. They provide support with personal care, food preparation, managing finances and enabling people to undertake activities in the local community.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff had a good understanding of what abuse was and the safeguarding procedures that should be followed to report it. People had risk assessments in place to cover any risks that were present within their lives, but also enable them to be as independent as possible. All the staff we spoke with were confident that any concerns they raised would be followed up appropriately by their manager. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's current needs. The staff recruitment procedures ensured that appropriate pre-employment checks were completed to ensure only suitable staff worked at the service.

Medicines were managed safely. The processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service. Staff were trained in infection control, had the appropriate personal protective equipment to perform their roles safely. There were arrangements in place for the service to make sure that action was taken and lessons learned when things went wrong, to improve safety across the service

People’s needs and choices were assessed and their care provided in line with up to date guidance and best practice. They received care from staff that had received training and support to carry out their roles. Staff were well supported by the registered manager and had one to one supervisions and observations of their practice.

People were encouraged to shop for, prepare and cook their own meals. Staff supported them to make healthy choices to maintain their health and well-being. Staff supported people to book and attend appointments with healthcare professionals, and supported them to maintain a healthy lifestyle. The service worked with other organisations to ensure that people received coordinated and person-centred care and support.

People's consent was gained before any care was provided and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were met. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice

Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect and spent time getting to know them and their specific needs and preferences. People were happy with the way that staff provided their care and support. People were encouraged to make decisions about how their care was provided.

People were listened to, their views were acknowledged and acted upon and care and support was delivered in the way that people chose and preferred. Care plans were person centred and reflected how people’s needs were to be met. Records showed that people were involved in the assessment process and the on-going reviews of their care. There was a complaints procedure in place to enable people to raise complaints about the service.

The service worked in partnership with other agencies to ensure quality of care across all levels. Communication was open and honest, and improvements were highlighted and worked upon as required.

The service had an open culture that encouraged communication and learning. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about the service and it was used to drive continuous improvement. Staff were motivated to perform their roles and worked to empower people to be as independent as possible. The provider had quality assurance systems to review the quality of the service to help drive improvement.

This inspection took place on the 22 and 26 January 2016 and was announced. The service is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes or shared accommodation when they are unable to manage their own care. At the time of the inspection there were 18 people using the service.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People who could verbally communicate told us that they felt safe in their own home and we observed people to be happy and relaxed around the staff that supported them. Staff understood the need to protect people from harm and abuse and knew what action they should take if they had any concerns. Staffing levels ensured that people received the support they required at the times they needed. We observed that there was sufficient staff to meet the needs of the people they were supporting. The recruitment practice protected people from being cared for by staff that were unsuitable to work in their home.

Support plans contained risk assessments to protect people from identified risks and help to keep them safe. They gave information for staff on the identified risk and informed staff on the measures to take to minimise any risks.

People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed. Records showed that medicines were obtained, stored, administered and disposed of safely. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services when needed.

People were actively involved in decision about their care and support needs There were formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their support. People participated in a range of activities both in their own home and in the community and received the support they needed to help them do this. People were able to choose where they spent their time and what they did.

Staff had good relationships with the people who they supported. Complaints were appropriately investigated and action was taken to make improvements to the service when this was found to be necessary. The management was approachable and had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. Staff and people were confident that issues would be addressed and that any concerns they had would be listened to.

One of the persons who used the service said " I like Disneyland they take me." We asked if they were happy they replied "Yes."

We spoke with a relative who said " Mencap provide an excellent service, I have never had any reason to complain. They always include me in any changes to his care plan or medication. They take him on holiday, in the past he has been to the USA. He has had changes of carers over the years but they must all be from the same tree, they are all very good."

All the staff we spoke with told us leadership was good and they felt supported by their managers. They made comments such as, "Mencap are very good employers, I am very happy working for them", "I find it a rewarding vocation, I am not bothered about working late or going in on my day off", and finally " I feel supported by my manager at Mencap, I love working for them."

We found Royal Mencap Society Northamptonshire Domiciliary Care Agency to be compliant against the regulations we inspected against.

Northamptonshire Domiciliary Care Agency

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

During an assessment under our new approach

21 May 2018

During a routine inspection

22 January 2016

During a routine inspection

12 August 2013

During a routine inspection