• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

GFI@112

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Regal Community Centre, Ridgefield Road, Cowley, Oxford, OX4 3BY

Provided and run by:
Go For It (Respite and Social Care) Ltd

Assessment report published 15 July 2026

Ratings

  • Overall

    Requires improvement

  • Safe

    Requires improvement

  • Effective

    Good

  • Caring

    Good

  • Responsive

    Good

  • Well-led

    Requires improvement

Our view of the service

Date of assessment: 20 May 2026 to 19 June 2026.

The service is a homecare agency providing support to adults and children under the age of 18 with learning disabilities, mental health conditions, physical disabilities and sensory impairments. At the time of inspection, the service was supporting 2 people with the regulated activity of personal care.

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. People received support in accordance with this guidance.

This was the first inspection of the service since registration.

The service was in breach of regulations in relation to Safe Care and Treatment, and Good Governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this inspection.

The service did not always concentrate on safety. Medicines, staffing and risk management were not fully managed appropriately, resulting in increased risk to people who used the service. Systems and processes were not in place to maintain oversight or good governance of the service and therefore missed opportunities to improve the service’s safety.

Risk assessments and care plans were in place but did not always include clear guidance for staff on how to manage all risks or deliver safe care to people using the service. Language used in care planning and daily records was not consistently person‑centred.

People were supported to access to a wide range of meaningful activities, outings and daily stimulation. Staff were kind and compassionate. They respected people’s rights related to consent and mental capacity. Staff always responded to people’s behaviour that communicated a need, an emotion, or distress. Staff were trained in positive behaviour support approaches that enabled them to support people sufficiently and manage risks to themselves and others.

The provider offered a range of opportunities for people, their relatives and staff to give feedback. The provider had a shared vision and positive culture in which people’s relatives were a part of.

The provider was very responsive to feedback we provided during the inspection.

People's experience of this service

We received mostly positive feedback about the provider from people and their relatives. They confirmed that staff treated them with kindness, however, acknowledged that the transition in using the service had been difficult.

One relative told us they did not always feel listened to, stating that, at times, staff did not respect their wishes and instead acted in a way that caused inconsistency between the provider and relatives. However, relatives stated they felt their loved ones were safe.

Relatives confirmed that communication with the provider was positive and they felt listened to, and that action was taken when they provided feedback.