- Homecare service
Harp Place
Assessment report published 12 June 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
We assessed Harp Place also known as Deeangels Care Limited on 18 May 2026. We inspected the service because it had not previously been inspected. Harp Place is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes. At the time of our assessment, the service supported adults over 65, adults under 65 and people with learning disabilities and/or autistic people. We considered whether care was delivered in line with the principles of Right support, right care, right culture, we looked at whether people were supported to have choice, control, independence, meaningful activity, community inclusion and a good quality of life.
We found shortfalls in the provider’s governance and oversight systems. The provider did not always maintain accurate and complete records in relation to recruitment, training, supervisions and medicines administration. Care plans and risk assessments were not always updated when people’s needs changed. Mental Capacity Assessments were not robust or easily accessible to care staff. The provider had not always identified, recorded, escalated or learnt from incidents effectively.
Some people experienced positive support to access community services, but this was not always consistently planned, reviewed or monitored to ensure it remained meaningful.
However, people and those important to them gave positive feedback about staff. People said staff were kind, reliable and respectful. Relatives and advocates told us staff knew people well and supported them to access the community, attend appointments and improve aspects of their wellbeing. Staff supported people to make choices and promoted some positive outcomes, including improved confidence, hygiene, medicines routines and healthier lifestyles.
The provider was in breach of one legal regulation relating to good governance.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
People's experience of this service
People experienced kind and reliable care, but the provider needed to strengthen systems to make sure people’s rights, choices, outcomes and quality of life were consistently reviewed, recorded and improved.
People and those important to them were mostly positive about the care they received. People said they felt safe, staff were reliable, visits were not missed, and staff treated them with kindness and respect. Relatives and advocates told us staff were consistent, approachable and knew people well. One person said they felt listened to and described staff as kind and respectful.
People experienced some positive outcomes. Feedback showed staff supported people to access the community, attend appointments, improve personal hygiene, develop confidence and make healthier choices. One person told us their medicines were now taken correctly and in the right amount since they have been supported by this provider. Another person said staff supported them to do things they liked and gave them choices.
People with learning disabilities received support from staff who understood their routines, preferences and communication needs. Feedback from relatives and advocates showed staff built positive relationships with people, including people who did not communicate verbally. Staff supported people to access activities and spend time in the community, which promoted wellbeing and quality of life.
While people generally expressed positive views about their care, our assessment found elements of care did not meet expected standards, and peoples positive experience of the service was not always supported by robust provider systems. Care reviews, feedback opportunities, Mental Capacity Assessments, outcome monitoring and care records were not always completed or updated.
Some relatives and advocates said they had not been asked for feedback. A relative also raised concerns about how daily activities were recorded and whether community support was always meaningful.
While people generally expressed positive views about their care, our assessment found elements of care did not meet expected standards. People’s positive experience was not always supported by robust provider systems to review their rights, choices, communication needs, quality of life outcomes and future aspirations.