During an assessment under our new approach
About the service
Alina Homecare Horley is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes in Crawley and the surrounding areas. At the time of the inspection the agency provided the regulated activity of personal care to 36 people.
Who the service is for
This service supports older people and people, with a range of needs including frailty, physical health conditions and dementia who are living in their own homes.
Our view of the service
We carried out this assessment on 18 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.
The service demonstrated an embedded culture of safety, with clear systems in place to identify, respond to and learn from risks. Incidents and changes in people’s health were consistently recorded, reviewed and escalated, with evidence of learning being used to strengthen practice. For example, systems had been introduced to enable staff to electronically report changes in people’s mental wellbeing, which were reviewed and acted on in partnership with families and healthcare professionals. This approach, prompted by learning from a serious incident elsewhere in the organisation, showed a proactive and preventative culture. Risk assessments were comprehensive and regularly reviewed, including environmental risks within people’s homes. Medicines were well managed through detailed digital systems and clear protocols, which supported safe administration and oversight. Recruitment processes were robust, and staff received a comprehensive induction and training programme that met the needs of the people they supported.
There were effective systems to assess people’s needs and deliver care in line with evidence-based practice. People’s risks, needs and preferences were clearly reflected in detailed care plans and risk assessments, supported by input from health and social care professionals. The service demonstrated a coordinated approach to monitoring outcomes, including through regular reviews, staff communication and oversight of areas such as nutrition and hydration.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. 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. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. At the time of the assessment, the service was not supporting any autistic people or people with a learning disability, but the providerhad regard to ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ with a strong emphasis on independence choice and inclusion, person centred care and fostering an open and empowering culture. The provider’s learning disability and autism training was aligned with the Oliver McGowan Mandatory Training on Learning Disability and Autism, which is the training CQC expects services to provide to staff to support them in delivering person-centred care.
People were supported to communicate their needs, with adjustments such as large print information and face-to-face visits to ensure understanding. Feedback and compliments evidenced positive outcomes for people, including improvements in independence and rehabilitation, and people were supported to engage in meaningful activities and maintain relationships.
The service promoted a caring and person-centred culture, with staff attentive to people’s emotional wellbeing and responsive to changes in their needs. People were encouraged to express their views and were involved in decisions about their care, with accessible systems such as digital care platforms and regular reviews enabling ongoing engagement. The service responded to feedback and complaints openly, with clear examples of learning and improvement.
Leadership and governance arrangements were well established and effective in driving quality and continuous improvement. There was a clear management structure with strong oversight through regular audits of care records, staff files and performance, with findings reviewed and actions tracked. Leaders promoted a positive culture focused on learning, development and values, with staff supported through training, career progression opportunities and initiatives such as ambassador roles. There was evidence of continuous improvement, including the implementation of new systems, strengthened quality assurance processes and ongoing development of staff skills.