Domiciliary Care Experts

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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has remained inadequate. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not assure the delivery of high-quality care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance of the service.

This service scored 36 (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 did not have a shared vision, strategy and culture based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The staff gave negative feedback about the culture of the service. Staff did not feel there was a positive open culture where they felt empowered to raise any concerns or make suggestions. Comments included, “They are a good company because they care about the clients. They don’t listen to us, they don’t care about us” and “Recently they are trying, communication is still not very good.”

Whilst it was clear the nominated individual and the manager were passionate about making improvements to ensure people had good quality care and improved outcomes, they had not acted in a timely manner to address this.

The provider did not have inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support, or who embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, and they did not do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The provider had a condition on their registration to have a registered manager in post. Although there was a manager who had been in post for over a year, they had not applied to register with the CQC. At the time of the site visit the service had been without a registered manager for in excess of 400 days. The provider and manager had not made enough progress on the issues we found at the previous assessment. During the assessment the provider sent us evidence to show the manager had now started the process to become registered.

Services providing health and social care to people are required to inform the CQC of important events that happen in the service. This is so we can check that appropriate action has been taken. Concerns were reported to CQC when they should have been. The provider had informed CQC of notifiable incidents such as safeguarding alerts.

People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard. Staff confirmed they were not invited to meetings and staff meetings did not take place. They did not always feel listened to. A staff member said, “I do not feel listened to by the office, I just get on with it, I will call the office for guidance, but I do not always get a response.” Some staff told us they were encouraged to voice their ideas for improvements and any concerns. For example, a staff member told us following the last assessment of the service some staff had met with the nominated individual to make some changes to the care rounds to make travel more efficient. Office based staff told us meetings for office-based staff had started to happen from January 2026. The provider had a whistle blowing policy in place. However, we received mixed feedback from staff about how to raise concerns with the provider or outside organisations if they needed to. Some staff said they did not feel listened to and would not raise concerns. Another member of staff said, “I could follow the whistleblowing policy, and I could talk to CQC.”

The provider did not always value diversity in their workforce. They did not work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. This is demonstrated by the provider not paying staff correctly or listening to their concerns. The provider told us in their online submission (Provider Information Return) in 2025, ‘We promote equal opportunities for all staff.’ We could not see this was always embedded into practice. The provider did not demonstrate they had always followed their policy in relation to equality, diversity and inclusion of the workforce.

Whilst the workforce was diverse, it was not clear what systems were in place to support staff. The provider told us that there was a flexible working policy in place. However, most staff told us there was no flexible working arrangements to meet childcare, therefore it was not clear how this policy was shared with staff.Staff told us they worked a rota of every other weekend which enabled them to meet their religious needs. Staff commented, “There is no flexible working regarding childcare, even if requests are made, they are not listened to. We have been told through text that we no longer have a fixed day off, they can make you work where they want when they want. There is no work life balance, they do not consider staff at all. There is no motivation” and “They add extra calls a lot without informing us, they sometimes remove calls without telling us, I have to constantly keep double checking. I have spoken to them a lot of times asking them to let me know.” The provider did not demonstrate they had a policy in place in relation to equality, diversity and inclusion of the workforce.

Whilst the provider had systems of accountability, clear responsibilities and roles in place. The provider did not have systems to ensure good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

There was a lack of oversight over the service. Information and filing systems were not adequate. There was missing information, missing files and incorrect information was given to inspectors. There was no clear understanding over how many people received care and support with personal care. Initially a list of people using the service was provided from 2024 which was out of date. A further list was provided which evidenced a more up to date list. This had been marked for inspectors as to who was in receipt of personal care. However, this did not include everyone receiving a regulated activity.

The provider did not have a robust system of audits and checks in place to provide them and the management team oversight of the service. No audits or checks had taken place since the last assessment.

Evidence found during this assessment showed that the provider had not improved the service by the deadlines set by CQC at the last assessment. Actions had not been fully met. We received an email from the nominated individual on 25 July 2025 stating that the provider was compliant with Regulation 18. We received an email from the nominated individual on 30 July 2025 stating that the provider was compliant with Regulation 12. The provider submitted an action plan on 29 August 2025 to detail how they had met the breaches of Regulations 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The provider had no oversight on whether the action plan had been achieved and whether the measures to meet regulations 17 had been embedded. There were continued breaches of regulations found at this assessment.

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement. The nominated individual explained how they received support from forums such as forums run by the local authority and Skills for Care. The service had received some visits and support from the local authority quality assurance team since our last assessment. However, it was not clear how the information and support had been fully utilised to improve the service for people receiving care and support as care plans and risk assessments had not been improved and there remained concerns around the quality of care.

A health and social care professional told us the service was good at liaising with them in relation to a person they worked with. They said, ‘I have concluded DCE (Domiciliary Care Experts) have gone above and beyond to provide all required to meet the client’s care needs.’

The provider did not focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

Since our last assessment there had been very little improvement in the service. The provider told us they had implemented a new electronic system for care planning and medicines since we last assessed the service. Any improvements the provider stated they had made within their action plan had not been robust. The nominated individual told us it had been an extremely challenging time trying to recruit to vacant staff positions and there had been a number of disciplinary investigations and staff suspensions which had impacted on the provider’s progress in making improvements.