Date of assessment: 3 December 2025 to 2 February 2026. Teasdale Healthcare Ltd is a care at home service providing support to adults with dementia, learning disabilities and autistic people, mental health conditions, physical disabilities, and sensory impairments. At the time of our assessment the service supported 39 people. We inspected the service because we had received concerns about the quality of care people received. The provider demonstrated a positive and open culture of safety where people, relatives and staff were able to raise concerns. People told us they felt safe and well supported. Care was personalised and delivered safely by trained staff. Staff knew people well and had access to the information they needed to provide safe and effective care. Although some minor inconsistencies were identified in documentation and medicines records, these did not result in harm, and staff knowledge of people’s needs ensured care remained safe. The provider managed risks positively, supporting people to live safely while maintaining independence. Infection prevention and control practices were effective. People and relatives expressed confidence in staff. The service was well led, with approachable and inclusive leadership which promoted openness, learning and continuous improvement. Staff felt supported and able to speak up, and people and relatives felt listened to and involved in care planning and reviews. Where shortfalls were identified leaders acted promptly to address these. The provider worked collaboratively with health and social care partners. A new electronic care recording system had been implemented to strengthen oversight and supported staff in recording with care. The service was well organised, responsive and person-centred, with effective leadership and governance supporting safe, high‑quality care.
PDF cached but not yet analysed by Claude; set ANTHROPIC_API_KEY and re-run npm run etl:reports -- --location 1-942510060.
Kare Plus North Staffs received a Good rating across all five key questions at its first CQC inspection in March 2015, with people and relatives consistently praising staff as kind, respectful and responsive to individual needs. Minor shortfalls were noted in audit record-keeping and medicines record signatures, with some quality monitoring systems still being developed.
Concerns (2)
minorRecord keeping: “we saw some gaps in the records of audits that had been completed and a review of medicines records showed signature gaps that hadn't been noted during the audit.”
minorGovernance: “some auditing systems were good and others were 'a work in progress'”
Strengths
· People felt safe and staff treated them with kindness, dignity and respect at all times
· Risk assessments were completed and reviewed, with prompt referrals made when changes in circumstances were noted
· Sufficient staffing levels with consistent staff allocation, including pre-employment checks for all staff
· Medicines were managed appropriately and safely with checks completed to ensure accuracy
· Staff received induction and regular training; consent to care and treatment was routinely sought
Teasdale Healthcare Ltd was rated Requires Improvement overall following a March 2017 inspection, with one regulatory breach (Regulation 16) for failure to follow its own complaints procedures, and significant concerns about late and missed calls affecting 16 of 21 people spoken with. The service performed well in safe and effective domains, with good safeguarding practices, recruitment checks, staff training and nutritional support, but governance systems failed to identify or act on the impact of unreliable call times on people's wellbeing.
Concerns (7)
criticalComplaints handling: “one relative had made many complaints...written to the provider in August 2016...did not receive any written response from the provider until January 2017.”
criticalMissed or late visits: “Of the 21 people we spoke with, 16 said they had late or missed calls.”
moderateGovernance: “quality checks had not identified how people's lives and well-being were being affected by late and missed calls.”
moderatePerson-centred care: “People were not always involved in planning their care and support...some couldn't remember if they had been involved.”
moderateConsent / capacity: “registered manager was not able to confirm...lasting power of attorney...had not seen the required documentation.”
moderateCare planning: “records did not always show what legal authority they had to represent people's views.”
minorStaff competency: “one staff member believed that the manager was the person who would make decisions on behalf of people.”
Strengths
· People felt safe with staff and trusted them in their homes; robust pre-employment and DBS checks were in place.
· Staff had received safeguarding training and could describe types of abuse and correct reporting actions.
· Comprehensive induction and ongoing training programme in place, including end of life and dementia awareness.
· Staff supported people to make their own decisions and obtained consent before providing care.
· People were supported to access health and social care professionals when required.
Quality-Statement breakdown (13)
safe: People are protected from abuse and staff understand safeguarding responsibilitiesGood
safe: Risks to people's safety and well-being are assessed and managedGood
safe: Safe recruitment processes are followedGood
safe: Medicines are managed safelyGood
effective: Staff receive training and support to be effective in their rolesGood
effective: People are supported to make decisions and consent is obtained (MCA compliance)Good
effective: People are supported to maintain nutrition and hydrationGood
caring: People are treated with kindness, dignity and respect
Teasdale Healthcare Ltd was rated Good overall at this February 2019 inspection, with four of five key questions rated Good and demonstrable improvements since the previous Requires Improvement rating in 2017. Well-Led was rated Requires Improvement due to failures in submitting statutory notifications to CQC, gaps in DBS recruitment records, and the absence of a formal audit system for accidents and incidents that risked missing safeguarding concerns.
Concerns (7)
criticalSafeguarding: “One incident...about a person with a bruise on their hand. These care notes had been audited but the concern about a bruise had not been identified.”
moderateGovernance: “Notifications were not always submitted as required...the deadline had passed and the notifications had not been submitted.”
moderateRecord keeping: “Systems to ensure that staff recruitment files contained the necessary evidence needed improving as some evidence relating to DBS checks was not available.”
moderateIncident learning: “There was no formal audit of these to help identify trends...there was a risk that other trends may not be identified.”
minorEnd-of-life care: “It was not always evident in people's care plans what their needs or preferences were when they were nearing the end of their life.”
minorConsent / capacity: “Some staff we spoke with were not able to tell us anything about the MCA or what capacity meant.”
minorStaff competency: “Some staff we spoke with were not able to tell us anything about the MCA or what capacity meant.”
Strengths
· People felt safe and staff were described as punctual, with the office proactively contacting people if staff were running late.
· Risk assessments and management plans were in place and staff were knowledgeable about individual support needs.
· Medicines were administered safely with clear instructions, appropriate recording, and use of PPE.
· Complaints handling had improved since the previous inspection, with a prior regulatory breach resolved.
· People were treated with dignity, respect and compassion, and reported feeling involved in their care decisions.
Quality-Statement breakdown (22)
safe: Systems and processes to protect people from abuseGood
safe: Assessing risk, safety monitoring and managementGood
safe: Staffing and recruitmentGood
safe: Using medicines safelyGood
safe: Preventing and controlling infectionGood
safe: Learning lessons when things go wrongGood
effective: Ensuring consent to care and treatment in line with law and guidanceGood
effective: Assessing people's needs and choices; staff working with other agenciesGood
Requires improvement
caring: People are involved in planning their own care and supportRequires improvement
responsive: Complaints are handled in line with the provider's own proceduresRequires improvement
responsive: Care visits are delivered at agreed times and missed calls are preventedRequires improvement
well-led: Quality assurance and monitoring systems effectively identify and address issuesRequires improvement
well-led: Leadership is open, transparent and supports continuous improvementRequires improvement
effective: Staff skills, knowledge and experienceGood
effective: Supporting people to eat and drink enoughGood
effective: Supporting people to live healthier lives and access healthcare servicesGood
caring: Ensuring people are well treated and supported; equality and diversityGood
caring: Supporting people to express their views and be involved in decisionsGood
caring: Respecting and promoting people's privacy, dignity and independenceGood
responsive: Improving care quality in response to complaints or concernsGood
responsive: Personalised careGood
responsive: End of life care and supportGood
well-led: Managers and staff being clear about roles, quality performance, risks and regulatory requirementsRequires improvement
well-led: Planning and promoting person-centred, high-quality care; duty of candourGood
well-led: Engaging and involving people using the service, the public and staffGood
well-led: Continuous learning and improving careGood