Love 2 Care Homecare Services Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in continued breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance. Systems and processes to make improvements were not effective and the provider did not ensure adequate oversight of recruitment processes or effective rota-planning.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider was clear about their key values of the service and said they shared the values with staff at the start of their employment. One staff member said, ‘Love 2 Care is a company I chose to work for, it has a good ethos.’

Leaders said staff are aware of specific outcomes for people, for example physiotherapy exercises to improve mobility.

Leaders understood the barriers to achieving their goals, for example local authority funding for care hours and resources. The provider said they raise referrals with the local authority if additional resources or care hours were required.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty. For example, the registered manager had completed qualifications relevant to their role and was in the process of completing more leadership and management training to improve their knowledge and skills. The registered manager said they attend local authority provider forums to stay up to date with changes in policy.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The provider said they have fostered an ‘…open door culture’ to encourage staff to speak up and raise concerns. The provider said they investigated concerns and protect staff who are ‘whistleblowers.’ Where concerns had been raised, the provider had acted appropriately to investigate and resolve them.

Most staff said they could speak with the provider about their concerns, and they would be listened to. One staff member told us the provider encourages staff feedback through staff surveys as well as calling staff to check if they are happy and if there is anything they could improve. Another staff member said, “I can say what I want and when I want, they are pretty good at making changes, changes have been made to my route [to people’s homes to provide care] because of this.”

However, two staff members said they were not always listened to and did not feel the provider would act on their concerns. One such example given was to confirm they had emailed the provider about an issue but had not received a response from the provider. We spoke with the provider about this with the permission of the staff member. The provider said they would speak with the staff member about their concern.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The provider told us they monitored the service to ensure a positive workplace culture. Policies were in place to help promote workforce equality, diversity and inclusion.

The provider said they have made reasonable adjustments to support staff in their role. One staff we spoke with confirmed how the provider had made reasonable adjustments to support them in their role.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this with others when appropriate. The provider had not made enough improvements in this area and was still in breach of regulation.

We found multiple audits took place regularly, however actions from audits were not always timely. For example, the provider identified staff files required auditing in September 2024 but had not taken action to audit these files at the time of our visit on 1 April 2025. We identified shortfalls in staff recruitment files and a lack of risk mitigation following receipt of a staff member’s DBS check. Leaders took immediate action to rectify this during the inspection. However, the actions identified from provider’s own audit of its recruitment processes were still to be completed.

The provider had implemented a Continuous Improvement Plan (CIP) to uphold and maintain quality and compliance with regards to all aspects of service delivery. However, this was not regularly reviewed or updated. This meant there was a risk the CIP was not effective. We saw most of the improvements on the CIP had been completed, however where improvements were overdue completion, there was nothing in place to say how these would be addressed. The provider had failed to follow their own policies around staff recruitment and have effective oversight of the staff rota to ensure people’s care needs were met in a timely manner. The provider had also failed in its responsibility to ensure notifications to CQC about incidents which affect service users had been submitted appropriately.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The provider said they worked in partnership with a range of health and social care professionals to support people including social workers and occupational therapists.

One health and social care professional told us the provider had supported to a person with complex needs, they told us, “Love2Care were dynamic in their response to the changing level of presentation and changing level of need. They kept me regularly updated throughout. Love2Care were persistent and consistent in their approach to the person, by trying to ensure that the carers who the person felt most comfortable with were scheduled to provide care to them as much as possible. I completed joint visits with the main carer for the person where I observed the carer to be empathetic but also direct in their approach.”

Staff told us they contacted health professionals for advice when needed and followed this advice.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider said they shared learning with other providers in provider forums to raise awareness about poorly fitted denture risks.

The provider said how they were using technology to support people’s independence around medicines and making phone calls.

However, the provider’s Continuous Improvement Plan (CIP) was not always used effectively to ensure actions for improvement were completed in a timely way when they had been identified.