Home Instead Senior Care

Key findings

We carried out this assessment between 28 September 2026 and 9 October 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

We found that the service was well organised and provided people with a consistently good standard of care and support. Care was tailored to individual needs and enabled people to maintain their independence and manage everyday life as effectively as possible.

Promoting independence was a priority within the service. Staff supported people to remain in their own homes and encouraged them to continue doing as much as they could for themselves, in line with their abilities and preferences. Where people’s needs increased, some had moved from domiciliary care to live-in support, allowing them to receive a higher level of assistance without having to leave their home. People and relatives spoke positively about this approach and said it had helped individuals maintain continuity, independence and familiarity within their own environment.

There was effective leadership, with a clear focus on person centred care and the ongoing development of the service. Systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service, including regular audits and checks. These arrangements helped identify areas for improvement and gave assurance that people’s needs were being met safely and appropriately.

Staff understood their responsibility to safeguard people from the risk of abuse; they were knowledgeable about what concerns they would need to report and to whom. Risk assessments had been conducted to ensure people were supported with their health conditions. The provider managed health risks through a combination of care planning, risk assessments, staff training, competency checks and supporting policies and procedures.

Risks associated with people’s care and support were identified, assessed and kept under review. Care records provided staff with clear guidance about how identified risks should be managed in order to reduce the likelihood of harm. This included consideration of risks linked to people’s health conditions, more complex clinical needs and the environments in which they received support. Where appropriate, environmental hazards were considered alongside individual health risks, with clear measures in place to support staff to provide care safely.

Medicines were managed safely, with clear procedures for administration, recording, storage and monitoring within people's homes. Some people were supported with PRN (As Required) medicines. PRN medicines are medicines prescribed to be taken or given only when needed, rather than as part of a regular daily routine. PRN protocols were in place.

People were supported by staff who understood their individual needs and had received training relevant to the care and support they provided. Recruitment processes included appropriate pre-employment checks, including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, to support safer recruitment decisions. DBS checks are a review against the police national computer that is used to support providers to make safer recruitment decisions. The provider also placed emphasis on recruiting people whose attitudes and behaviours reflected the organisation’s values, helping to promote a consistent and person-centred approach to care.

There was a positive approach to learning and improvement across the service. Incidents, accidents and near misses were reviewed, with regular meetings used to discuss concerns, identify learning and consider any action required. Staff were encouraged to raise issues openly and contribute to discussions about how practice could be improved. The provider had systems in place to monitor patterns and recurring themes, and learning was shared with staff to help strengthen practice and reduce the likelihood of similar events happening again.

Staff spoke positively about the training and development available to them and felt it equipped them with the knowledge and skills needed to carry out their roles safely and effectively. Training was supported by competency checks to provide assurance that learning had been understood and could be applied in practice. One staff member told us, “Yes, we complete all our training and have competency tests. All the training is relevant to my job.”

Staff spoke positively about organisational culture and reported feeling supported by managers. One staff member told us that “I have worked here for nearly 5 years, it feels like home working for the service”. They described receiving regular supervision, observations and opportunities to discuss practice. Staff felt comfortable raising concerns and sharing ideas for improvement.

Governance systems included audits, training oversight, quality monitoring, incident reviews and competency assessments. The service demonstrated an emphasis on learning and continuous improvement, including the use of lessons learned processes and sharing learning across the organisation.