- Homecare service
Elite Care - Unit 3 Deans Farm
Assessment report published 3 September 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
About the service
Elite Care – Unit 3 Deans Farm is a domiciliary care agency providing the regulated activity of personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of the assessment 28 people were being supported by the service.
Who the service is for
The service supports adults of all ages, people with dementia, mental health conditions, physical disabilities, sensory impairment and people with learning disabilities.
Key findings
We carried out this assessment on 25 August 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.
People were supported by staff who had the required pre-employment checks completed. New staff had induction training and opportunities to shadow more experienced staff. The registered manager said recruitment of new staff could be challenging but they would not take any new packages of care unless they had staff available to cover visits. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and people’s risk assessments provided guidance to staff. Whilst there were effective systems to safeguard people from abuse, we did find 1 incident which had not been shared with the local authority or CQC. As this had happened recently, leaders took immediate action to address this shortfall.
There was some improvement needed with how the service managed medicines. There were some ‘as required’ protocols not in place and staff were not recording where topical patches were placed on people’s skin. Staff knew the patch had to be rotated but there were no records to demonstrate rotation had taken place. Staff had training on medicines administration and assessments on their competence. However, records for competence checks were not detailed and had not been completed for 1 member of staff.
Incidents and accidents had been recorded. Leaders had taken immediate action to make sure people were safe, however, actions had not always been followed up. This meant there was not always a record of what further action had been taken to prevent recurrence or details of any analysis or outcomes.
People’s needs had been assessed, and this information was used to generate care plans. The service used an electronic care planning system, however, people also had a paper copy in their homes. Leaders completed regular checks with people to make sure they were happy with their care and support. Quality checks were also completed on daily care records to make sure staff were following the planned care. Staff had training on equality, diversity and inclusion and leaders were aware of ways in which people may face discrimination. Leaders shared examples of how they had liaised with healthcare professionals to make sure people had timely health care.
There was a registered manager in post who had experience of leading teams and managing care services. They were supported by an office team and senior care staff. They were members of a local care provider forum which enabled them to get further training and guidance and link up with other local providers. Governance systems were mostly effective in assessing and monitoring care delivery. Staff told us the service was well managed and they felt supported. One member of staff said, “The manager is supportive, absolutely amazing. They are really quick to help with any issues, and this is one of the best companies I have worked for.”
We 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. At the time of the assessment, the service was not supporting any autistic people or people with a learning disability. However, staff had training on autism and learning disabilities and care planning records contained goals and outcomes people wanted to achieve. The registered manager said they would familiarise themselves with ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance before accepting any packages for people with learning disabilities.
People's experience of this service
People said they felt safe using this service and care was reliable and suitable for their needs. Comments from people included, “I especially value the security they [staff] provide, so I feel very safe in my home and in the care they provide” and “The care has always seemed professional and totally safe.”
Everyone was positive about the approach of the care staff. People said staff were caring and had time to stop and chat with them. Comments included, “All staff are so friendly” and “There is always time within visits for a good chat and usually a carer will have a hot drink with me. It all feels very natural.”
People said staff asked for consent before providing care and took time to communicate with them. Comments included, “They [staff] explain what they are doing and make sure I agree before going on.”
There had been no missed visits, but some people said staff could at times be late. People understood staff could be delayed by traffic, however, some people said they were not always told. Comments included, “The only issue we have is occasional lateness, which is understandable. But they never ring to say they are running late, sometimes I ring them to ensure someone is coming.” We shared this feedback with the provider. However, some people said they were told if staff were going to be late. Comments included, “I can rely on the visits, they ring if they are going to be late” and “Time keeping is good and staff stay the full time.”
People said staff were well trained and had a good understanding of dementia and how this affected people. People also said they were used to new members of staff visiting them with more experienced staff to learn about their roles. Comments from people and relatives included, “I have seen new staff introduced by experienced staff, and they are equally skilled and competent” and “There is no doubt all staff are confident and competent in what they have to do.”
People had no concerns with how staff helped them manage their medicines. If people needed to ring the office, they said staff were always available. People and relatives thought the service was well managed, and they would know who to contact with any concerns. One relative said, “They come across as a well-run company. We have never had any problems or complaints.”
People and relatives had been asked for their views and feedback about the service. People said they had telephone calls from leaders to check if they were happy with their care. There had also been annual surveys to gather people’s views. Comments included, “They send out an annual questionnaire to ask if people are satisfied with the service or have any suggestions” and “If I had any issue, I would be confident someone would deal with it.”