Date of assessment 3 February to 9 February 2026. Calverton Supreme Home Care is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to older adults of all ages and people who are living with dementia, mental health conditions, physical disabilities or sensory impairments. Not everyone using Calverton Supreme Home Care received a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. At the time of our assessment 52 people were supported by Calverton Supreme Home Care with a regulated activity. The assessment was carried out due to the age of the providers previous rating. We announced the visit 24 hours before we visited to ensure there would be someone available at the office to support the assessment. At this assessment we found a breach of the legal regulations in relation to good governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment. Care plans did not always contain clear, detailed written guidance to support staff in managing people’s health conditions effectively. Medicines were not always managed safely, and incidents and accidents were not always fully reviewed. The Mental Capacity Act (2005) was not consistently followed, as decision capacity assessments were not always completed for individuals assessed as lacking capacity. Governance systems were ineffective and did not provide sufficient oversight of the service. Quality assurance processes were in place. However, there were enough staff to ensure people received their scheduled care calls and staff stayed for the allocated time. People were treated with kindness and respect, and although written guidance was sometimes missing, staff and the management team demonstrated a good understanding of the people they supported.
PDF cached but not yet analysed by Claude; set ANTHROPIC_API_KEY and re-run npm run etl:reports -- --location 1-114691082.
Calverton Supreme Home Care achieved a Good rating across all five key questions at its January 2018 inspection, demonstrating significant improvement from the previous Requires Improvement rating. Minor issues were identified around unsigned handwritten MAR entries, limited behavioural support guidance for one person, and inconsistent visit punctuality communication, all of which the management team agreed to address promptly.
Concerns (5)
moderateRecord keeping: “medicines such as antibiotics that were hand written onto the MARs, were not signed by a second person to confirm the information was correct.”
minorConsent / capacity: “best interest decisions needed further detail to show who had been involved in the decision and how the decision had been reached.”
minorCare planning: “staff had some guidance of the support required at these times, we noted this was limited in detail for one person.”
minorMissed or late visits: “58% stating they received their visits within the agreed 15 minutes. This shows there were some improvements required in people receiving their visit at the agreed time.”
minorCommunication with families: “two people said they were not advised and several others said on the whole they were informed.”
Strengths
· People felt safe and reported no concerns; safeguarding training was in place and multi-agency procedures were followed correctly.
· Safe staff recruitment processes including DBS checks, identity and reference checks were consistently applied.
· Sufficient staffing levels maintained; management declined new packages when capacity was insufficient.
· Safe medicines management systems in place with weekly MAR checks by management team.
· Staff received structured induction, ongoing training and regular supervision opportunities.
Calverton Supreme Home Care was rated Requires Improvement overall following an announced inspection on 27 July 2016, with Safe, Effective and Caring rated Good but Responsive and Well-Led requiring improvement. Key shortfalls included care plans not reflecting people's current needs, insufficient audit robustness, and inconsistent office communication, despite a caring staff team and sound safeguarding and medicines practices.
Concerns (9)
moderateCare planning: “one person told us they now used an aid to assist them to get into the bath and said this was not included in their care plan”
moderateCare planning: “information that had been identified when assessing ways of minimising risks people faced had not been included in the guidance for staff in their care plans”
moderateGovernance: “The auditing of people's care records was not sufficiently robust to identify errors and where any improvements were needed.”
moderateRecord keeping: “these did not highlight any issues, such as a lack of description of the care provided in people's daily notes...There was also a time delay in auditing records”
moderatePerson-centred care: “information was still not always kept up to date with people's changing needs”
minorConsent / capacity: “The form used did not fully follow the requirements and principles of the MCA so these assessments did not contain all the information expected.”
minorCommunication with families: “some other people felt their reason for contacting office staff had not been acted upon. This included either cancelling or rearranging appointments.”
minorStaffing levels: “some staff said they felt obliged to cover unallocated calls on their days off...they did not think it was good practice to attend calls they had not previously visited”
minorSupervision / appraisal: “there had not been a team meeting held recently where they could discuss the service with colleagues and managers.”
Strengths
· People felt safe and trusted staff; safeguarding concerns were recognised and referred to the multi-agency safeguarding hub appropriately.
· Staff were trained, supported and completed the Care Certificate; induction included supervised shadow shifts.
· People were supported to manage medicines safely with competency assessments and retraining following errors.
· Consent and people's right to make decisions were respected; staff obtained verbal consent before each care act.
· People described staff as caring, kind and respectful, with dignity and privacy consistently promoted.