- Homecare service
Ryedale Homecare
Assessment report published 5 March 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 13 and 21 January 2026. This was a planned assessment under the single assessment framework which is based on a set of quality statements. They are arranged under topic areas and describe what good care looks like.
Ryedale Homecare is a domiciliary care service registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide personal care to older people and younger adults including people living with dementia, learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder in their own homes. At the time of inspection, 13 people were receiving the regulated activity of personal care.
The service remains rated as requires improvement. The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to governance. Enough improvements were not found at this assessment, and the provider remained in breach of this regulation.
Governance systems and audits were not effective and did not ensure safe or consistent care. Oversight remained limited in identifying and managing risks, and the provider had not implemented structured systems to make the required improvements. Although a new electronic care planning system had been introduced, it was not being used consistently, and records were not always complete or contemporaneous. Environmental risk assessments for people’s homes were not completed, and daily records were not routinely reviewed to identify emerging concerns. Some care plans lacked up‑to‑date risk assessments or clear guidance putting people at risk of harm.
The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation. Staff files included appropriate recruitment checks, supervisions were completed, and medicines were managed safely. Staff competency checks had improved and were being expanded.
Care plans for people with a learning disability and autistic people reflected individual needs. People told us staff treated them with dignity and respect, and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Safeguarding procedures were effective.
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. The provider was meeting the associated expectations.
In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.
People's experience of this service
Feedback from people, and their relatives showed overall satisfaction with the service. People described staff as polite, respectful and supportive. Several commented that staff knew them well and provided care in a consistent manner. Some people said the service felt familiar and stable, and that staff were responsive to their needs. Feedback about the manager was positive, with people describing them as approachable, knowledgeable and willing to listen. No negative feedback was received during this assessment.
People with a learning disability also reported positive experiences. During a visit to two individuals, both appeared comfortable, relaxed and engaged in their usual routines. They interacted appropriately with staff, who demonstrated an understanding of their needs and preferences. Their living environments were clean, personalised and reflected their interests. People were able to describe activities they enjoyed and showed they were involved in daily choices. Staff interactions supported dignity, comfort and a positive experience.
Although people’s feedback indicated satisfaction with the service, our assessment found that aspects of governance and oversight did not meet expected standards.
We used the quality‑of‑life tool to understand the experience of people with a learning disability.