We carried out this assessment of Aurora Home Care Ltd on 4 and 5 November 2025. Aurora provides personal care to people living in their own homes, including older adults and people with physical health needs. At the time of our visit, the service supported 57 people. We identified areas requiring improvement in governance, risk assessments and care planning. Risk assessments were often incomplete or absent, and care records lacked person-centred detail about preferences, aspirations, and health goals. There was no evidence of significant harm, but these issues posed an ongoing risk if not addressed. Systems for monitoring outcomes and learning from incidents were underdeveloped, and medicines management required some improvement and better oversight. These shortfalls meant the provider could not fully demonstrate safe and effective care, despite staff knowing people well and mitigating risks in practice. The registered manager acted promptly to address concerns during the inspection and has begun implementing improvements, including strengthening audit systems and planning additional training. The pace of change and improvement needed increasing. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment. The provider had started introducing Oliver McGowan training to support people with a learning disability. Governance systems, including audits and medicines oversight, were still being developed and need to be embedded to ensure sustainable improvement. Staff demonstrated a good awareness of people’s needs and people we spoke with gave generally positive feedback. This included regarding staff reliability, kindness, call times, personal preferences and needs. Staffing levels were safe and there was no evidence of missed or significantly late calls. There were effective processes in place for ensuring safety in this area. The registered manager was open about the challenges facing the service and had taken some steps to make recent improvements, such as additional supervisors in post.
PDF cached but not yet analysed by Claude — set ANTHROPIC_API_KEY and re-run npm run etl:reports -- --location 1-4921771961.
We carried out this assessment of Aurora Home Care Ltd on 4 and 5 November 2025. Aurora provides care and support to people living in 'supported living' settings, so they can live as independently as possible. People's care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people's personal care and support. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with the regulated activity 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided. The service did not always apply the principles and values of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence. We identified areas requiring improvement in governance, risk assessments and care planning. Risk assessments were often incomplete or absent, and care records lacked person-centred detail about preferences, aspirations, and health goals. There was no evidence of significant harm, but these issues posed an ongoing risk if not addressed. Systems for monitoring outcomes and learning from incidents were underdeveloped, and medicines management required some improvement and better oversight. These shortfalls meant the provider could not fully demonstrate safe and effective care, despite staff knowing people well and mitigating risks in practice. The registered manager acted promptly to address concerns during the inspection and has begun implementing improvements, including strengthening audit systems and planning additional training. The pace of change and improvement needed increasing. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment. The provider had started introducing Oliver McGowan training to support people with a learning disability. Governance systems, including audits and medicines oversight, were still being developed and need to be embedded to ensure sustainable improvement. Staff demonstrated a good awareness of people’s needs and people we spoke with gave generally positive feedback. This included regarding staff reliability, kindness, dignity, personal preferences and needs. Staffing levels were safe and there was no evidence of missed or late calls. There were effective processes in place for ensuring safety in this area. The registered manager was open about the challenges facing the service and had taken some steps to make recent improvements, such as additional supervisors in post.
PDF cached but not yet analysed by Claude — set ANTHROPIC_API_KEY and re-run npm run etl:reports -- --location 1-4921771961.
Aurora Home Care Ltd improved from Requires Improvement to Good overall, resolving previous breaches in medicines management, risk assessment, staffing, and governance following the appointment of a new manager. Residual concerns remain around rostering quality checks, staff call durations, internal communication, and the embedding of governance processes, keeping Well-Led at Requires Improvement.
Concerns (7)
moderateGovernance — “Quality assurance monitoring was in place and had improved but needed further embedded with the new manager, this included following up on actions and ensuring they had been addressed fully.”
moderateCommunication with families — “Communication could be better. No one rings to say they will be late for visits.”
moderateStaffing levels — “Staff attending care calls did not always stay for the time allocated. "They are supposed to come for half an hour, but they stay 20 minutes."”
moderateMissed or late visits — “People reported some calls running late and rotas often not sent out. The provider was addressing this and had employed new care coordinators.”
moderateLeadership — “At the time of our inspection there was no registered manager in post, but a new manager had recently started in post and had started the registration process.”
minorRecord keeping — “We found some records in need of review. A new system was being installed and the new manager was going to review all records to ensure they were up to date.”
minorMedication management — “We found some issues with medicines records at the home of 1 person we visited, but this was addressed by the new manager.”
Strengths
· People felt safe and reported staff were kind and caring.
· Medicines were generally managed safely and the previous breach of Regulation 12 was resolved.
· Staff training had improved; previous breach of Regulation 18 was resolved.
· Safe recruitment procedures in place including DBS checks and references.
· Infection prevention and control procedures were adequate with appropriate PPE use.
Quality-Statement breakdown (16)
safe: Using medicines safelyGood
safe: Assessing risk, safety monitoring and managementGood
safe: Staffing and recruitmentGood
safe: Preventing and controlling infectionGood
safe: Learning lessons when things go wrongGood
safe: Systems and processes to safeguard people from the risk of abuseGood
effective: Staff support: induction, training, skills and experienceGood
effective: Assessing people's needs and choices; delivering care in line with standards, guidance and the lawGood
Aurora Home Care Ltd was downgraded from Good to Requires Improvement following a focused inspection that found breaches of Regulations 12, 17 and 18 covering unsafe medicines management, unreviewed risk assessments, inadequate staff training and supervision, and weak governance. While staff were described as kind and caring and worked well with external professionals, poor quality assurance, rota planning and record keeping undermined the safety and effectiveness of the service.
Concerns (14)
criticalMedication management — “Medicines were not always managed safely... 'As required' medicines protocols were not always in place. Topical medicines such as creams, did not always have full details of where the medicine should be applied”
criticalStaff competency — “Staff competency checks were not robust and often occurred in the providers office and not in people's homes.”
criticalCare planning — “Risks to people and staff had not always been identified, assessed or reviewed... Some people's risk assessments were less detailed or had not been reviewed for over two years.”
criticalStaff training — “Staff induction and training was not robust. Training deemed mandatory by the provider had not been completed for all staff. Staff said they had not been provided with face to face moving and handling training.”
criticalGovernance — “Quality assurance monitoring was not effective. Audits and checks completed had not identified the issues we had during the inspection.”
moderateSupervision / appraisal — “Staff did not feel supported. Staff supervision had not been completed as expected by the provider. Staff meetings had not occurred regularly.”
moderateMissed or late visits — “Care calls were not well planned, and some calls overlapped. People did not always receive their calls at the time agreed nor did staff always stay for the allocated time.”
moderateStaffing levels — “due to sickness and staff leaving this had impacted on the business... 'Timings of calls can be an issue as I think they are short staffed.'”
moderateInfection control — “The provider did not have robust infection control procedures in place. Staff could not tell us how to put on or take off PPE in line with current guidance.”
moderateRecord keeping — “Record management needed to be improved, including care records and medicines records.”
moderateLeadership — “We were not assured the registered manager was clear about their role nor did they have a good oversight of the running of the service.”
moderateSafeguarding — “Not all staff had completed safeguarding adults training.”
minorIncident learning — “lessons were learnt when things went wrong, but this was difficult to evidence because of poor record keeping.”
minorCommunication with families — “other people said the opposite and had little contact with the office staff.”
Strengths
· People and relatives confirmed care staff were kind and caring
· Staff worked well with other health and social care professionals and made timely referrals
· People were supported to maintain a balanced diet with choices offered
· Staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and sought consent
· Safe recruitment checks including DBS were generally in place
Quality-Statement breakdown (16)
safe: Using medicines safelyRequires improvement
safe: Assessing risk, safety monitoring and managementRequires improvement
safe: Staffing and recruitmentRequires improvement
safe: Preventing and controlling infectionRequires improvement
safe: Learning lessons when things go wrongRequires improvement
safe: Systems and processes to safeguard people from the risk of abuseRequires improvement
effective: Staff support: induction, training, skills and experienceRequires improvement
effective: Assessing people's needs and choices; delivering care in line with standards, guidance and the law
PDF cached but not yet analysed by Claude — set ANTHROPIC_API_KEY and re-run npm run etl:reports -- --location 1-4921771961.
effective: Supporting people to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced dietGood
effective: Staff working with other agencies to provide consistent, effective, timely careGood
effective: Ensuring consent to care and treatment in line with law and guidanceGood
well-led: Managers and staff being clear about their roles, and understanding quality performance, risks and regulatory requirementsRequires improvement
well-led: Engaging and involving people using the service, the public and staff, fully considering their equality characteristicsRequires improvement
well-led: Promoting a positive culture that is person-centred, open, inclusive and empoweringGood
well-led: Continuous learning and improving careGood
well-led: Working in partnership with othersGood
Requires improvement
effective: Supporting people to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced dietGood
effective: Staff working with other agencies to provide consistent, effective, timely careGood
effective: Ensuring consent to care and treatment in line with law and guidanceGood
well-led: Managers and staff being clear about their roles, and understanding quality performance, risks and regulatory requirementsRequires improvement
well-led: Promoting a positive culture that is person-centred, open, inclusive and empoweringRequires improvement
well-led: Engaging and involving people using the service, the public and staffRequires improvement
well-led: Continuous learning and improving careRequires improvement