Rated Care Homes

Witham Community Care Limited

G

Good

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 1 rating

    Only one rating on record, so there is no trend to show yet.

  • 1 month

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 72 of 80

    rated home care services in East Sussex are rated Good, like this one.

Witham Community Care Limited: inspection record

Home care, East Sussex

Rated Good in September 2026.

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

Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 11 September 2026 (assessment visit 11 August 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Date of Assessment: 17 and 18 August 2025.

Witham Community Care Limited is a domiciliary care service providing support to people in their own homes. The Care Quality Commission only regulates services providing personal care and not everyone supported was in receipt of personal care. The service supported 41 people, 15 of whom were in receipt of personal care.

  • Safe Good
  • Effective Good
  • Caring Good
  • Responsive Good
  • Well-led Good
Read the rest of CQC's summary

We undertook this full assessment of this newly registered service. We did not find any areas of concern during this assessment. Witham Community Care Limited is managed by 2 registered managers.

Trends and patterns from accidents and incidents were identified and any learning shared with staff. People’s movement between services, if periods of respite care were needed for example, were managed well by the service with positive communication between managers across services. People were supported safely by a staff team that knew them well and knew and were confident to raise any safeguarding concerns, should they arise. Staff were recruited safely with ongoing support provided through training and supervision meetings. Risks, including those within people’s home environment, were managed well. Infection prevention control and medicine management were managed safely.

Thorough pre-assessment processes were in place and every effort was made to match staff with similar interests and outlook with people with similar tastes. As staff knew people well they were able to detect subtle changes in their presentation and were able to respond appropriately and secure any additional support as needed. The registered managers and wider staff team all worked well with other health and social care professionals. People’s needs were constantly monitored with significant improvements noted with some people’s care needs actually decreasing because of the support given to help people regain their independence. Staff understood the importance of gaining consent from people before carrying out a task or activity.

Everyone we spoke with told us about a caring, supportive and kind staff team who always treated them with dignity and respect. People’s individual needs were considered and any immediate matters arising were addressed by staff. People’s independence was encouraged without compromising their safety. Staff told us that with the support of the registered managers they were able to achieve a work life balance that suited them.

The registered managers consistently put people at the centre of care, decision making and processes to improve their support needs. Communication between the service, people and their loved ones worked well. Any particular communication needs were managed well. A complaints process was accessible to everyone and the registered managers also kept a record of minor concerns in case any patterns emerged. People had access to additional care support from other professionals as needed and were able to socialise and maintain preferred routines which were respected and accommodated by the service. Opportunities were available to make advanced decisions about future care provision if people wanted to.

The registered managers had a clear vision of future care provision, placing people at the centre of any proposed developments. Staff, people and relatives told us that the registered managers were approachable and always available to support their request and needs. Staff had opportunities to make their views known and all reported that the work environment was safe and welcoming to everyone and that difference was celebrated. The registered managers had established their service at the heart of the local community and had forged meaningful professional relationships with other adult social care providers.

  1. Safe

    Good

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

    This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good.

    This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

  2. Effective

    Good

    Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

    This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good.

    This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

  3. Caring

    Good

    Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

    This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good.

    This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

  4. Responsive

    Good

    Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

    This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good.

    This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

  5. Well-led

    Good

    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.

    This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good.

    This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

Questions to ask the service

  1. Ask to see the most recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) report and what the service did about any points in it.
  2. Ask how visit times are agreed and who covers when your usual carer is away.

Registration details

Registered manager
Nicole Witham
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Domiciliary care service
Who it supports
Dementia, Older People, Physical Disability, Sensory Impairment

Inspection report

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

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
13977512 (opens Companies House)

Getting help from East Sussex County 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 Witham Community Care Limited provide nursing care?
The Care Quality Commission's register does not list nursing care for Witham Community Care Limited.
When was Witham Community Care Limited last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Witham Community Care Limited was published on 11 September 2026.
Who runs Witham Community Care Limited?
Witham Community Care Limited is run by Witham Community Care Limited.
What is Witham Community Care Limited's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Good, published on 11 September 2026.