Date of assessment: 7 November 2025 to 19 November 2025. This responsive assessment was carried out to check if the service had made improvements since our last inspection. Manford Deluxe Care Limited provides care and support to people living in their own homes. Not everyone using Manford Deluxe Care Limited received regulated activity; the CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided. This assessment included a site visit to the office location. This assessment was carried out by one inspector. We looked at 21 quality statements as part of this assessment. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because we wanted to make sure someone would be available to support us with the inspection. The site visit was carried out on 10 November 2025. We gathered further information remotely from the service such as training records and policies. We also spoke to people who used the service, relatives of people that used the service and staff after the site visit to obtain their views of the service. We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgement about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.
PDF cached but not yet analysed by Claude — set ANTHROPIC_API_KEY and re-run npm run etl:reports -- --location 1-12236777653.
Manford Deluxe Care Limited, a small domiciliary care agency in Ilford, was rated Requires Improvement overall at its first inspection in January 2023, with breaches of Regulations 9, 12 and 17 identified relating to unsafe medicines management, absent pre-assessment processes and ineffective governance auditing. Strengths included kind, consistent, person-centred care delivery, low staff turnover and good safeguarding practices, with the registered manager demonstrating openness to improvement.
Concerns (7)
criticalMedication management — “Staff did not have written guidance in place to follow when medicines were prescribed to be given "when required" or with a choice of dose.”
criticalMedication management — “There were no records of staff competency checks. This meant the provider could not be certain medicine procedures were being followed correctly and safely.”
criticalCare planning — “The registered manager was unable to provide [pre-assessment forms]. This meant people were at risk of receiving care from staff who did not fully understand their health conditions.”
criticalConsent / capacity — “Where a person lacked mental capacity, the provider had not taken steps to confirm whether their relative had the legal authority to make decisions for them.”
criticalGovernance — “Audits had not picked up significant shortfalls in practices in relation to medicines management, pre-admission form and confirming if the provider had seen the lasting power of attorney.”
moderateRecord keeping — “Records of what had been audited were not routinely kept by the service. The provider had not adequately assessed, monitored and improved the quality and safety of the service.”
moderatePerson-centred care — “The provider also had not followed their own procedures and had not always ensured that prior to supporting people, their needs were comprehensively assessed.”
Strengths
· Staff understood people and their individual needs well and provided kind, caring, person-centred support.
· Sufficient staffing levels with robust recruitment processes including DBS checks and identity verification.
· Staff received safeguarding training and demonstrated clear knowledge of how to recognise and report abuse.
· Regular one-to-one supervisions and team meetings supported staff and promoted a positive workplace culture.
· Low staff turnover supported consistency of care; relatives reported staff were reliable and calls were on time.
Quality-Statement breakdown (22)
safe: Using medicines safelyRequires improvement
safe: Systems and processes to safeguard people from the risk of abuseGood
safe: Assessing risk, safety monitoring and managementGood
safe: Staffing and recruitmentGood
safe: Preventing and controlling infectionGood
safe: Learning lessons when things go wrongGood
effective: Assessing people's needs and choices; delivering care in line with standards, guidance and the lawRequires improvement
effective: Staff support: induction, training, skills and experienceGood
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 guidanceRequires improvement
caring: Ensuring people are well treated and supported; respecting equality and diversityGood
caring: Supporting people to express their views and be involved in making decisions about their careGood
caring: Respecting and promoting people's privacy, dignity and independenceGood
responsive: Planning personalised care to ensure people have choice and control and to meet their needs and preferencesGood
responsive: Meeting people's communication needsGood
responsive: Improving care quality in response to complaints or concernsGood
responsive: End of life care and supportNot rated
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 empoweringGood
well-led: How the provider understands and acts on the duty of candourGood