Date of assessment: 19 May 2025 to 23 May 2025 This assessment was carried out to follow up on action we told the provider to take at the last inspection. Storm Homecare Limited is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people living in their own homes. The service provides support to older adults, younger disabled adults, people with a long-term mental health condition, and people with a learning disability or autistic people. The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to consent to care, safe care and treatment, safeguarding, staffing, fit and proper persons and good governance. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation. People received the right support, at the right time, and in a safe manner. The care and support from staff had made significant improvements to people’s quality of life. The service promoted good health and wellbeing outcomes for people, including supporting people to have access to medical appointments and worked in collaboration with a range of medical partners. The service had a positive culture, with staff who enjoyed working with the people they supported, and for Storm Homecare. Staff were very respectful and aware they were supporting people living in their own home. We have 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.
PDF cached but not yet analysed by Claude; set ANTHROPIC_API_KEY and re-run npm run etl:reports -- --location 1-152772651.
Storm Homecare Limited was rated Requires Improvement overall following an October 2023 inspection, with six regulatory breaches identified spanning medicines management, safeguarding, staffing, recruitment, consent, and governance, resulting in two warning notices. The service demonstrated genuine strengths in person-centred, caring practice and responsive communication support, but governance systems failed to identify or sustain improvements since a prior Requires Improvement rating.
Concerns (9)
criticalMedication management: “Medicine counts for 1 person identified multiple medicine doses had been missed, however medication records had been signed by staff to state the person had received all of their prescribed medicines.”
criticalSafeguarding: “4 people who either had unauthorised restrictions on their daily life, or paperwork in their file which contained elements of restrictive practice.”
criticalStaffing levels: “Some staff worked excessively long hours, frequently picked up calls on their day off, and worked on care visits in the day before working a waking night shift that evening.”
criticalConsent / capacity: “Records for 1 person showed care being delivered to them whilst they were asleep, which meant they did not have the option to refuse if they so wished.”
criticalGovernance: “Systems and processes in place to ensure regular audits were taking place, these did not always improve the quality and safety within the service.”
moderateRecord keeping: “Some people's records contained conflicting information, in respect of mental capacity and pain levels. This had not been identified and acted upon by the provider.”
moderateCare planning: “A person who was at risk of falls had information missing from their care plan. This placed the person at increased risk of harm as staff did not have necessary information.”
moderateStaff competency: “Staff had received safeguarding training, however, safeguarding concerns were not always identified and escalated to the relevant agencies.”
moderateIncident learning: “The provider had reviewed a lot of the records we looked at prior to this inspection but had failed to identify the issues we found. Reviews were not sufficiently thorough.”
Strengths
· People and relatives provided positive feedback; staff described as kind and caring, making people feel safe.
· Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals which they found useful.
· Provider complied with the Accessible Information Standard, including support in preferred languages such as Hindi.
· Adequate PPE supplied to staff, with infection prevention and control training completed.
· Registered manager was approachable, supportive of staff, and understood duty of candour obligations.
Quality-Statement breakdown (19)
safe: Using medicines safelyRequires improvement
safe: Assessing risk, safety monitoring and management; Learning lessons when things go wrongRequires improvement
safe: Systems and processes to safeguard people from the risk of abuseRequires improvement
safe: Staffing and recruitmentRequires improvement
safe: Preventing and controlling infectionGood
effective: Ensuring consent to care and treatment in line with law and guidanceRequires improvement
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 experienceRequires 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 supportGood
well-led: Managers and staff being clear about their roles, and understanding quality performance, risks and regulatory requirements; Continuous learning and improving careRequires improvement
well-led: Engaging and involving people using the service, the public and staffGood
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
Storm Homecare Limited achieved a Good rating across all five key questions at its July 2015 announced inspection, having successfully remediated two prior regulatory breaches relating to staff training and care planning identified in May 2014. The service demonstrated personalised, safe, and well-organised care for 32 people, with minor areas for improvement noted around communication responsiveness and complaints procedure clarity, both addressed during or shortly after inspection.
Concerns (4)
moderateStaff training: “At our last inspection the provider had not ensured that all the staff employed had received the training they needed to provide effective care to the people using the service.”
moderateCare planning: “At our last inspection the provider had not ensured that care plans and risk assessments included the detail necessary for care workers to be able to identify and meet people's needs.”
minorComplaints handling: “When we inspected it was in need of updating to better explain the role of the local authority, the Ombudsman, and CQC in dealing with complaints.”
minorCommunication with families: “A couple of respondents had said they thought staff at the agency could be better at communicating with them, for example telephone calls were not always returned promptly.”
Strengths
· People felt safe and trusted staff completely, with effective safeguarding policies and clear referral processes in place.
· Training programme substantially improved and expanded since previous inspection, covering both general and specialist needs.
· Personalised risk assessments and care plans co-produced with people using the service and reviewed regularly.
· Staff treated people with dignity and respect, and were attentive to individual preferences including cultural and gender needs.
· Robust quality assurance system including quarterly home visits, spot checks, and bi-annual satisfaction surveys.
Quality-Statement breakdown (15)
safe: Safeguarding systems and staff knowledgeGood
safe: Risk assessment and managementGood
safe: Staffing levels and safe recruitmentGood
safe: Medicines managementGood
effective: Staff training and competencyGood
effective: Mental Capacity Act and DoLS complianceGood
Storm Homecare Limited was rated Requires Improvement overall following a September 2016 inspection, with a single breach of Regulation 17 (Good Governance) identified due to ineffective quality assurance systems failing to detect shortfalls in risk assessments, record-keeping, recruitment, and staff supervision. Caring was rated Good, reflecting consistently positive feedback about staff kindness and dignity, but weaknesses in care planning, missed visits, and governance undermined safe and responsive care delivery.
Concerns (8)
criticalGovernance: “The provider's systems and processes to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided were ineffective.”
criticalSafeguarding: “A staff member who had never worked in care before had been sent on their first call on their own to support a person with complex needs... This resulted in a safeguarding incident.”
criticalStaff competency: “The provider had not followed their own recruitment procedure and had allowed a new member of staff to start work without police clearance.”
moderateRecord keeping: “People's 'daily records', completed by staff when they supported them, did not contain enough detail to show that people's assessed needs had been met.”
moderateCare planning: “Some care plans lacked detail which meant staff did not have the information they needed to provide responsive care.”
moderateStaff training: “Some people felt that new and relief staff were not trained to the standard of regular staff.”
moderateSupervision / appraisal: “Over a third of staff had not yet had supervision in 2016. This meant staff may not have been getting the support they needed to carry out their roles.”
moderateMissed or late visits: “There have been lots of times where nobody has turned up. They leave [my family member] on a night shift with nobody to help her.”
Strengths
· All staff were caring and kind; people consistently praised the warmth, thoughtfulness and respectful attitude of regular staff.
· Staff were trained in safeguarding and knew how to recognise and report signs of abuse.
· Medicines were safely managed; staff completed MARs accurately and people were satisfied with medicines support.
· People were encouraged to make choices and maintain independence; consent was routinely sought and recorded.
· Staff communicated effectively with people who had complex communication needs, adapting their approach accordingly.
Quality-Statement breakdown (14)
safe: Risk assessments were not always fit for purpose and did not give staff clear instructions on managing risks.Requires improvement
safe: Medicines were safely managed and administered; staff completed MARs appropriately.Good
safe: Recruitment procedure not consistently followed; one staff member started without UK police clearance.Requires improvement
effective: Staff had induction and ongoing training but concerns raised about knowledge of new and weekend staff.Requires improvement
effective: MCA principles were applied; people had capacity assessments and consent was routinely sought.Good
effective: Some care plans lacked nutritional detail; staff had basic food hygiene training.Requires improvement
caring: Staff were consistently described as caring, kind and respectful, promoting dignity and independence.Good
Storm Homecare Limited improved from Requires Improvement to Good across all five key questions following its September 2016 inspection, demonstrating sustained improvements in recruitment, risk management, training, care planning, and governance. The service delivered personalised, person-centred care with strong leadership, effective quality assurance systems, and positive feedback from people, relatives, and staff.
Strengths
· People felt safe with staff; safeguarding training completed and responsibilities understood by all staff
· Risk assessments were individualised, regularly reviewed, and followed by staff
· Robust recruitment processes including DBS checks and employment history verification
· Medicines administered as prescribed with accurate MAR records and regular auditing
· Staff received induction, ongoing training, regular supervision, spot checks and annual appraisals
caring: Kindness, dignity and respectGood
caring: Involvement in care decisionsGood
responsive: Personalised care planningGood
responsive: Complaints handlingGood
well-led: Quality assurance and governanceGood
well-led: Record keeping and office managementGood
well-led: Staff supervision and developmentGood
caring: Most people had continuity of care; some concerns about unintroduced weekend staff.Good
responsive: Care plans lacked personalised detail leaving staff without sufficient guidance for responsive care.Requires improvement
responsive: Some people experienced late, early or missed visits; no electronic call monitoring system in place.Requires improvement
responsive: Complaints procedure was in place and updated; people reported improvements following concerns raised.Good
well-led: Quality assurance audits failed to identify multiple shortfalls; breach of Regulation 17 Good Governance.Requires improvement
well-led: Staff supervision policy not followed; over a third of staff had received no supervision in 2016.Requires improvement
well-led: Statement of purpose contained inaccurate information about staffing and qualifications.Requires improvement