- Homecare service
My Carer
Assessment report published 8 September 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 15 May 2026 to 16 June 2026.
The service is a domiciliary care agency providing support to adults living in their own homes. Not everyone using the service received personal care. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only assesses where people receive personal care. Personal care includes support with tasks relating to personal hygiene and eating. Where people received personal care, we also considered any wider social care provided. At the time of our assessment, 30 people were receiving the regulated activity.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of this assessment.
We identified breaches of regulations relating to safe care and treatment, consent and good governance. We also found the provider had not ensured their Statement of Purpose accurately reflected the regulated service being delivered. As a result of the concerns identified, we have asked the provider to submit an action plan detailing how they will address the areas requiring improvement.
The provider was supporting people whose needs were not reflected within their Statement of Purpose. This meant they could not demonstrate that all aspects of the service being delivered had been considered within their registration arrangements.
We assessed the service against the principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture. The service was not always able to demonstrate these principles were consistently met. Although people generally received kind, caring and personalised support from staff who knew them well, significant weaknesses in governance, risk management, care planning and oversight arrangements reduced assurance that care was consistently planned, delivered and reviewed in line with people's needs and preferences.
People, relatives and professionals consistently described staff as caring, compassionate and committed to supporting people's wellbeing. People valued the positive relationships they had developed with staff and told us they felt respected, listened to and supported to maintain their independence. Professionals described the service as responsive and flexible and told us staff worked positively alongside health and social care partners to support people.
However, systems designed to assess, monitor and manage risks were not effective. Risk assessments and care plans did not consistently contain sufficient information to support the safe management of people's needs. We identified concerns relating to the management of complex healthcare conditions, including dysphagia, PEG care, diabetes, epilepsy, severe allergies and the use of emergency medicines. Care records did not always provide staff with clear guidance on managing identified risks, recognising deterioration or responding appropriately during emergencies. This placed people at risk of receiving unsafe care and avoidable harm.
The provider's governance and quality assurance systems were ineffective. Audits were not routinely completed, and existing oversight systems had failed to identify a range of concerns found during the assessment, including shortcomings in risk management, care planning, medicines management, consent processes, safeguarding oversight and record keeping. Leaders relied heavily on an electronic recording system and staff knowledge; however, they had not ensured records were sufficiently detailed, person-centred or reflective of people's current needs. As a result, leaders could not demonstrate effective oversight of quality, safety and outcomes.
Medicines management processes did not always reflect best practice. Information relating to medicines prescribed on an as-required basis did not consistently provide staff with sufficient guidance to support safe administration. Medicines audits had not identified these concerns, reducing assurance that medicines systems were operating effectively.
The provider did not consistently follow the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Mental capacity assessments and best-interest decision-making processes had not always been completed where required. The provider was also unable to demonstrate consent had consistently been obtained for the use of people's photographs on social media. This reduced assurance that people's rights, choices and autonomy were always protected.
Staff received training, supervision and competency assessments to support them in their roles. Appropriate recruitment checks were completed before staff commenced employment. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs and spoke positively about the support they received from leaders and colleagues.
The provider was open, honest and responsive throughout the assessment. Leaders acknowledged the concerns identified and took immediate action in response to feedback. However, the concerns identified during the assessment demonstrated that systems for governance, oversight, risk management and continuous improvement were not effective. Significant improvements were required to ensure people consistently received safe, well-managed and person-centred care.
People's experience of this service
People were positive about the support they received and consistently described staff as caring, kind and respectful. People and relatives told us staff treated them with dignity, respected their privacy and took the time to understand them as individuals. One relative told us staff were “genuinely interested” in their family member's wellbeing and outcomes.
People told us staff knew them well and understood their individual needs, preferences and routines. Many people spoke positively about having regular carers who provided consistent support, helping them develop trusting relationships and feel comfortable. Staff were described as friendly, reliable and responsive, and people said they generally received care from staff who understood what was important to them.
People felt safe receiving support and knew who they could contact if they had concerns. They told us staff listened to them, respected their choices and supported them to maintain as much independence as possible. People spoke positively about the compassion shown by staff and described receiving care from individuals who genuinely cared about their wellbeing.
People were supported to access healthcare services when needed and professionals spoke positively about the service's communication and partnership working. Feedback from professionals highlighted the provider's commitment to delivering person-centred care and supporting positive outcomes. Staff responded appropriately when people's needs changed and worked with health and social care professionals to help people access the support they required.
Most people were satisfied with the reliability of the service and told us staff stayed for the agreed length of time and did not rush visits. People valued the continuity provided by regular staff and said this helped build trust and understanding. However, some people told us they would have preferred greater consistency in knowing which staff would be visiting them in advance.
Although people's experiences of day-to-day care were generally positive, we identified concerns regarding the systems used to plan, record and review care. Information about people's health needs, risks, communication requirements, preferences and support arrangements was not always accurately recorded or kept up to date. This meant people could not always be assured that all staff had access to complete and current information about how to support them.
Some people had complex healthcare needs which were not fully reflected within care plans and risk assessments. Important information relating to specific health conditions, emergency responses and professional guidance was not always clearly documented. Whilst staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs and people generally told us they received appropriate support; the provider could not consistently demonstrate that care records contained sufficient information to support safe and consistent care delivery.
People generally experienced continuity of care because staff knew them well and communicated regularly about changes in needs. However, information resulting from healthcare appointments, professional recommendations and changes in circumstances was not always reflected in care records in a timely manner. This reduced assurance that important information would always be consistently available to staff and partner agencies involved in people's care.
People were generally involved in decisions about their care and support. However, records did not always demonstrate how consent was reviewed and maintained over time. The provider could not consistently demonstrate that mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions had been completed when required. In addition, the provider was unable to demonstrate consent had been obtained before people's photographs were used on social media. This meant people could not always be assured their rights, privacy and choices were fully protected.
Whilst people were able to share feedback about the service, feedback processes were not always adapted to meet individual communication needs. The provider could not consistently demonstrate how feedback from people, relatives, staff and professionals had been analysed or used to improve the service. This meant opportunities to learn from people's experiences and drive improvement may have been missed.
Overall, people consistently described staff as caring, compassionate and committed to supporting their wellbeing. However, significant concerns regarding governance, risk management, care planning, consent processes and quality assurance systems reduced assurance that positive outcomes for people could be consistently demonstrated, monitored and sustained.