- Homecare service
Angel Home Care Service Private Limited
Assessment report published 22 April 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
The assessment took place between 5 March and 23 March 2026.
This assessment was undertaken in response to the aged rating.
We reviewed 32 quality statements as part of this assessment.
Angel Homecare is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people living in their own homes. The service supports a range of individuals, including older people, people living with dementia, and those with physical disabilities, mental health needs, and sensory impairments. At the time of our assessment, 88 people were receiving the regulated activity of personal care.
Our assessment included a visit to the provider’s office, speaking with people using the service and their relatives, and talking with staff, including the Registered Manager.
People told us they were supported by staff who knew them well and treated them with kindness and respect. Staff promoted people’s independence and encouraged them to make choices about the care and support they received. The provider had established positive working relationships with external partners and stakeholders to support people’s outcomes.
However, we found concerns in several areas. People’s care plans were not always sufficiently detailed, person‑centred, or reflective of their individual needs, preferences, and aspirations. Risk assessments were not always robust, which meant potential risks to people’s health, safety, and wellbeing were not consistently identified or mitigated. Recruitment processes were not always safe, and the provider had governance systems and oversight arrangements in place, but these were not consistently effective. These systems had not identified the concerns we found during this assessment.
Due to the concerns identified, we have asked the provider to submit an action plan setting out how they will address the areas requiring improvement and the timescales for doing so.
People's experience of this service
Staff knew people well and were familiar with their individual needs, preferences, and routines. They responded to people’s needs in a timely and appropriate way, which helped people feel safe and well‑supported. People told us staff were reliable and consistent.
Staff promoted people’s choice, control, and independence. They encouraged people to make their own decisions and provided support in ways that respected their autonomy. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the importance of offering options, enabling people to remain as independent as possible in their daily lives.
People consistently described staff as kind, caring, and compassionate. Staff took time to listen to people and responded with patience and understanding. Both staff and leaders were committed to ensuring people received person‑centred care that upheld their dignity, privacy, and human rights. Leaders reinforced these values through team discussions, supervision, and ongoing expectations around professional conduct.
People told us they knew who to speak to if they had concerns or wanted to raise an issue. However, there were limited opportunities for people to provide feedback in a structured, proactive, and meaningful way. This meant the provider may have missed opportunities to identify learning, improvement, or positive themes from people’s experiences.
Care plans and associated records did not always contain sufficient detail. In many cases, they were task‑focused and lacked the personalised information needed to guide staff effectively. This included limited detail about people’s preferences, life history, what was important to them, or how they wished their care to be delivered. As a result, care plans did not always reflect a fully person‑centred approach and did not consistently support staff to tailor care to individuals’ needs and aspirations.