You are here

Archived: Hillingdon And Uxbridge Homecare Limited Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 16 April 2020

About the service

Hillingdon and Uxbridge Homecare Ltd is a domiciliary care agency providing a range of services including personal care for people in their own homes. The people using the service were either privately funding their

own care or using direct payments. At the time of our inspection the provider was supporting 20 people who were receiving personal care.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.

In this report, ‘care giver’ is the name the provider uses to describe the staff giving direct care to people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The provider did not always take appropriate action to investigate safeguarding concerns and if potential concerns were identified the provider could not demonstrate they had followed their safeguarding policies and procedures and in making sure the necessary statutory agencies were informed.

The provider did not always follow their complaints policy and procedures. They did not always respond to complainants in a timely manner.

The provider's quality assurance processes had not identified the above shortfalls so these could be addressed and action taken to prevent reoccurrence.

Family members told us their relatives were safe. Care givers were recruited safely. Care givers received an induction and shadowed more experienced colleagues before they supported people on their own. Care givers received regular supervision and appraisals in line with the provider’s policy. People received their medicines in a safe way. Care givers were provided with personal protective equipment to help prevent the spread of infection. Risks to people's health and well-being were identified and managed appropriately by care givers.

People's needs were assessed before they received care from the agency. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were supported to eat their meals according to their preferences.

Care givers had developed caring relationships with people and respected their dignity and privacy and promoted their independence. People were supported to remain independent. Care givers supported people to participate in activities which were important to them.

Care givers attended team meetings and they had regular supervisions and appraisals in line with the provider's policy so they were appropriately supported in their role.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 24 August 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.


We have identified breaches in relation to safeguarding people from abuse and improper treatment , receiving and acting on complaints and good governance.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our reinspection programme. If we receive any concerning information, we may inspect sooner.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 16 April 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 16 April 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 16 April 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 16 April 2020

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 16 April 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.