Great Park Homecare

“Date of assessment 4 June 2026 to 18 June 2026. Great Park Homecare is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of this assessment, 11 people were receiving a regulated activity. The provider was not currently providing support to anyone with a learning disability or autistic people. This was a comprehensive assessment of all quality statements. We carried out this assessment due to the length of time since the previous assessment. During this assessment, we found significant shortfalls in the provider’s governance, oversight and quality assurance arrangements. Leaders had not established effective systems to identify, monitor and address risks to people’s health, safety and welfare. As a result, the provider was unable to demonstrate they had adequate oversight of the quality and safety of care being delivered. Recruitment practices were not robust, which increased the risk of people being supported by staff who had not been appropriately vetted. There were also gaps in competency assessment processes, meaning the provider could not demonstrate staff had the necessary knowledge and skills to safely meet people’s assessed needs. There were limited care plans and risk assessments in place. These lacked clear, consistent and up-to-date guidance for staff regarding people’s care needs, health conditions, identified risks and future care wishes. Important information was either unavailable or incomplete following the provider’s transfer to a new electronic care system. This meant the provider could not be assured staff had access to accurate information to deliver safe and person-centred care, respond appropriately in an emergency or identify deterioration in people’s health and wellbeing. We found discrepancies between care plans, daily records and electronic medicines administration records (EMARs). Medicines information was not always accurate or complete, and governance systems had failed to identify and address these concerns. We also found there were no protocols in place to guide staff in the safe administration of medicines prescribed for use ‘as required’ (PRN). These failures increased the risk of medicines not being managed safely or in accordance with people’s assessed needs and prescribing instructions. Quality assurance, audit and governance systems had not been effective. The provider had failed to identify concerns relating to medicines management, recruitment, staff competency, risk assessments and care records. As a result, risks were not consistently identified, assessed, monitored or mitigated. This meant the provider could not demonstrate it was operating effective systems to ensure people received safe, high-quality care or to prevent avoidable harm. Although these concerns had not resulted in any known harm to people at the time of our assessment, the provider’s lack of oversight meant they could not be assured risks would be identified and addressed promptly. People and relatives consistently told us staff were kind, caring and respectful. The provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to safe care and treatment, good governance and fit and proper persons employed.  ”