The Caring Company Rutland Ltd

The provider was in breach of legal regulations relating to safe care and treatment and good governance. ​

There was a lack of effective leadership oversight and governance arrangements. Changes to the leadership and management team in April 2026, had not been. managed effectively. The handover process had not been adequate and there was a loss of important data.

Leaders did not have sufficient oversight of the quality and safety of the service. Reviews had not been undertaken with people to gather feedback about their experiences of care and support. Auditing processes relating to care plans, risk assessments and medicines management were ineffective and had not identified concerns within records.

Care plans and risk assessments did not consistently identify known risks or provide clear guidance for staff on how people's needs should be met safely. Medicines records had not been reviewed adequately to ensure people received their medicines safely and in accordance with prescribed instructions.

The provider had not ensured people’s mental capacity had been appropriately assessed where required. There was insufficient evidence decisions were made in people’s best interests or consent was sought in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Oversight of the workforce was also ineffective. The provider did not maintain accurate records of staff training and competency assessments had not been completed. As a result, we could not be assured staff possessed the necessary knowledge, skills and competence to meet people’s needs safely and effectively. In addition, staff supervision sessions and team meetings were not taking place, limiting opportunities for support, performance monitoring and effective communication across staff teams.

We received limited responses to our requests for staff feedback. Consequently, there was insufficient evidence available to comment on staff experiences of working at the service.

The provider had begun to take action to address these concerns. A new manager and clinical lead had been appointed, and a team leader role had been introduced. The provider had also engaged an external compliance and clinical governance consultancy to support the implementation of improved governance systems, quality assurance processes and staff support arrangements. Staff deployment was managed effectively. People were supported by consistent staff teams, and staff attended calls on time and remained for the planned duration of visits.

In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.