Rated Care Homes

Rapid Care

–

No overall rating

No overall rating: this location offers more than one kind of service, so the CQC rates each service separately.

At a glance

  • 4 ratings

    Its last inspection moved it down from Good to Requires improvement.

  • 7 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 62%

    of rated home care services in Medway are Good or Outstanding (87% across the South East, 88% across England).

Rapid Care: inspection record

Home care, Medway

This service has no overall rating at present. The squares show its earlier ratings.

Rapid Care: inspection record: inspection ratings by year, 2015 to 2026
201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
Overall
Safe
Effective
Caring
Responsive
Well-led

Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Bluebird Care (Swale) (Good, 0.1 miles away) and Hamilton House (Good, 0.1 miles away).

Nearest home care services:

  1. G
    Bluebird Care (Swale) Good, 0.1 miles away
  2. RI
    Community Careline Requires improvement, 0.1 miles away
  3. G
    Hamilton House Good, 0.1 miles away
  4. G
    Home Instead Medway Good, 0.2 miles away
  5. RI
    Logic Care Solutions Requires improvement, 0.6 miles away

See all home care services in Medway

See all home care services in Rainham

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 18 March 2026 (assessment visit 16 December 2025). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Date of Assessment: 13 and 19 January 2026. The service is a care at home service providing support to people living in their own homes. At the time of our assessment, the service was supporting 82 people with the regulated activity ‘Personal Care’.

  • Safe No rating
  • Well-led No rating
Read the rest of CQC's summary

This was a focused assessment undertaken to follow up on the enforcement action we had taken.

We identified 2 continued breaches of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance.

Although there had been an improvement in the assessment and management of risks identified at the last assessment, such as catheter care, we found 6 out of 7 people’s care records reviewed either did not fully assess or clearly plan for how to mitigate some people’s risks. There were multiple areas where key risk assessments or detailed guidance in people’s care plans were missing or incomplete, including for safe use of bedrails, choking risks, skin integrity risks and risks associated with people’s health conditions. The provider had made some improvement in how some medicines were managed such as clearer administration protocols for prescribed creams, but further improvements were needed.

The provider had not always taken sufficient timely action to drive improvement in all areas of the service. Governance arrangements remained inconsistent and had not been fully effective in identifying or addressing ongoing risks.

The provider had worked with external consultants and introduced new audits; some actions had led to improvements, while other areas needed further work to ensure robust and effective oversight. During the assessment, we found that new medicines audits failed to identify some of the issues we found at this assessment such as 2 people who did not have medicine administration records for their medicines.

Leaders were receptive to feedback and demonstrated a willingness to learn and improve. Action was taken promptly during the assessment to begin to address the issues found. The nominated individual also changed during the assessment, and they implemented further changes to strengthen governance and oversight at the service. These improvements were still new and not yet embedded.

However, feedback from people and relatives about the service continued to be positive. People told us they felt safe, and staff knew how to safeguard people. There were systems and processes in place to support staff to work in partnership with other relevant professionals to meet people’s needs. Staff knew people well and spoke confidently about their roles and responsibilities.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

  1. Safe

    No rating

    Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

    At our last assessment, we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has remained requires improvement.

    This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe, and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

    The service was in continued breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment, including the ways people’s medicines were managed.

  2. Well-led

    No rating

    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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

    This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

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

Questions to ask the service

  1. Safe was rated Requires improvement on 16 March 2023. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
  2. Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 16 March 2023. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.
  3. Ask to see the most recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) report and what the service did about any points in it.

Registration details

Registered manager
Omolola Opalemo
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Domiciliary care service, Supported living service
Who it supports
Children 0-18 years, Dementia, Older People, Physical Disability, Sensory Impairment, Younger Adults

Inspection report

Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

5 inspection reports, latest 16 March 2023. Latest assessment published 18 March 2026; the Care Quality Commission's newer assessments are published on its website rather than as reports.

The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.

Who runs it

Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
06841858 (opens Companies House)

Getting help from Medway Council

The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.

Checked on the council's website, November 2026.

Common questions

Does Rapid Care provide nursing care?
The Care Quality Commission's register does not list nursing care for Rapid Care.
When was Rapid Care last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Rapid Care was published on 18 March 2026.
Who runs Rapid Care?
Rapid Care is run by Rapid Care Ltd.
What is Rapid Care's CQC rating?
No overall rating: this location offers more than one kind of service, so the CQC rates each service separately.

Contact

Phone
01634 377755
Address
67 Station Road, Rainham, Gillingham, ME8 7SB Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Bluebird Care (Swale) (Good, 0.1 miles away) and Hamilton House (Good, 0.1 miles away).

Nearest home care services:

  1. G
    Bluebird Care (Swale) Good, 0.1 miles away
  2. RI
    Community Careline Requires improvement, 0.1 miles away
  3. G
    Hamilton House Good, 0.1 miles away
  4. G
    Home Instead Medway Good, 0.2 miles away
  5. RI
    Logic Care Solutions Requires improvement, 0.6 miles away

See all home care services in Medway

See all home care services in Rainham