Rated Care Homes

Elite Care - Unit 3 Deans Farm

G

Good

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 3 ratings

    First rated Requires improvement in 2016, most recently Good in September 2026.

  • 1 month

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 89 of 98

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

Elite Care - Unit 3 Deans Farm: inspection record

Home care, Wiltshire

Rated Good in September 2026.

Elite Care - Unit 3 Deans Farm: 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

  1. RI
    A & T (Salisbury) Ltd Requires improvement, 0.7 miles away
  2. G
    Alina Homecare - Salisbury Good, 1.5 miles away
  3. G
    Bluebird Care (Wiltshire South) Good, 1.7 miles away
  4. –
    Dignify Care Limited No overall rating, 1.7 miles away
  5. –
    Hillman Care UK LTD Not yet rated, 1.7 miles away

See all home care services in Wiltshire

See all home care services in Old Sarum

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 3 September 2026 (assessment visit 14 August 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

About the service

Elite Care – Unit 3 Deans Farm is a domiciliary care agency providing the regulated activity of personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of the assessment 28 people were being supported by the service.

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

Who the service is for

The service supports adults of all ages, people with dementia, mental health conditions, physical disabilities, sensory impairment and people with learning disabilities.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 25 August 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.

People were supported by staff who had the required pre-employment checks completed. New staff had induction training and opportunities to shadow more experienced staff. The registered manager said recruitment of new staff could be challenging but they would not take any new packages of care unless they had staff available to cover visits. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and people’s risk assessments provided guidance to staff. Whilst there were effective systems to safeguard people from abuse, we did find 1 incident which had not been shared with the local authority or CQC. As this had happened recently, leaders took immediate action to address this shortfall.

There was some improvement needed with how the service managed medicines. There were some ‘as required’ protocols not in place and staff were not recording where topical patches were placed on people’s skin. Staff knew the patch had to be rotated but there were no records to demonstrate rotation had taken place. Staff had training on medicines administration and assessments on their competence. However, records for competence checks were not detailed and had not been completed for 1 member of staff.

Incidents and accidents had been recorded. Leaders had taken immediate action to make sure people were safe, however, actions had not always been followed up. This meant there was not always a record of what further action had been taken to prevent recurrence or details of any analysis or outcomes.

People’s needs had been assessed, and this information was used to generate care plans. The service used an electronic care planning system, however, people also had a paper copy in their homes. Leaders completed regular checks with people to make sure they were happy with their care and support. Quality checks were also completed on daily care records to make sure staff were following the planned care. Staff had training on equality, diversity and inclusion and leaders were aware of ways in which people may face discrimination. Leaders shared examples of how they had liaised with healthcare professionals to make sure people had timely health care.

There was a registered manager in post who had experience of leading teams and managing care services. They were supported by an office team and senior care staff. They were members of a local care provider forum which enabled them to get further training and guidance and link up with other local providers. Governance systems were mostly effective in assessing and monitoring care delivery. Staff told us the service was well managed and they felt supported. One member of staff said, “The manager is supportive, absolutely amazing. They are really quick to help with any issues, and this is one of the best companies I have worked for.”

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. At the time of the assessment, the service was not supporting any autistic people or people with a learning disability. However, staff had training on autism and learning disabilities and care planning records contained goals and outcomes people wanted to achieve. The registered manager said they would familiarise themselves with ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance before accepting any packages for people with learning disabilities.

  1. Safe

    Good

    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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as 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. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as 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. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained a 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. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as 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. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as 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
Theresa Trevett
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Domiciliary care service
Who it supports
Dementia, Learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder, Mental Health, Older People, Physical Disability, Sensory Impairment, Younger Adults

Inspection report

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

4 inspection reports, latest 9 August 2018. Latest assessment published 3 September 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
05562504 (opens Companies House)

Getting help from Wiltshire 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 Elite Care - Unit 3 Deans Farm provide nursing care?
The Care Quality Commission's register does not list nursing care for Elite Care - Unit 3 Deans Farm.
When was Elite Care - Unit 3 Deans Farm last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Elite Care - Unit 3 Deans Farm was published on 3 September 2026.
Who runs Elite Care - Unit 3 Deans Farm?
Elite Care - Unit 3 Deans Farm is run by Elite Care Agency Limited.
What is Elite Care - Unit 3 Deans Farm's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Good, published on 3 September 2026.

Contact

Phone
01722 323223
Address
Unit 3, Deans Farm Buildings, Stratford Sub Castle, Salisbury, SP1 3YP Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

  1. RI
    A & T (Salisbury) Ltd Requires improvement, 0.7 miles away
  2. G
    Alina Homecare - Salisbury Good, 1.5 miles away
  3. G
    Bluebird Care (Wiltshire South) Good, 1.7 miles away
  4. –
    Dignify Care Limited No overall rating, 1.7 miles away
  5. –
    Hillman Care UK LTD Not yet rated, 1.7 miles away

See all home care services in Wiltshire

See all home care services in Old Sarum