Precious Hope Health & Home Care Ltd · three registered services · Leicester · Northampton · Milton Keynes
The published position of all three of your CQC-registered services, read from the register on 22 August 2026 — and the pattern across the 2,147 homecare services rated under the framework that replaced the one all three of your ratings were earned under.
The 30-second read
Registered services
3all homecare · England
Current overall ratings
2 Good1 requires improvement
Well-led below Good
2 of 3third dated Mar 2018
Past the 6-year ASC band
1 of 3Milton Keynes · 8.4 yrs
Three registered services, three positions, each formed on a different date. Each cell is the rating the register shows today, stamped with the year of the inspection that awarded it: the focused inspections of 2020–2023 looked only at Safe and Well-led, so the other three ratings were carried forward from an earlier comprehensive inspection. Every rating is pre-framework — none carries a 1–4 statement score, so there is no group score to average and none is shown.
Read across the Well-led row and the group’s position is one sentence: no service in the estate holds a Well-led that is both Good and current. Read down the middle rows for the other half: Effective, Caring and Responsive were awarded at Northampton in October 2017 and at Leicester in September 2018. Those are the ratings a commissioner reads today.
Each rating verified against the live CQC location page on 22 August 2026 · inspection years taken from the report each rating was awarded at, not the newest report on the file · no statement scores exist for any of the three, so no percentages are shown
CQC has named aged ratings — 6+ years in adult social care — as one of three re-assessment priorities. Measured from its rated report, Milton Keynes sits past that threshold. The register’s headline date for it, 13 April 2021, belongs to a report that carries no rating.
The February 2023 inspection was called to test whether a Warning Notice under Regulation 17 had been met. It had: the breach closed and the rating moved back up to Good. A documented recovery, on the register, in this group.
June 2023 at Leicester to March 2018 at Milton Keynes. Of 244 homecare providers running three or more rated services, 118 carry more than one overall rating — a mixed estate is the sector norm, and consistency is the argument the new frameworks make.
One published fact belongs beside the ratings: the people receiving personal care recorded at each Leicester inspection numbered 67 in September 2018, 95 in April 2022 and 163 in April 2023. The service carrying the group’s only Requires improvement is its largest, and its caseload rose by 68 people in the year before that inspection. Northampton was supporting 28 people in February 2023; Milton Keynes, nine at the 2018 inspection behind its rating.
The six shifts in the guide you downloaded are the rules this analysis is read against, so they are not re-taught here. One of them decides what these three ratings are worth: judgements move from a calculated score to written descriptors, so a key question is judged on what its weakest area can evidence rather than on an average of its parts. The guide’s own worked example is a Well-led carried by four statements at Good or above and pulled down by one weak governance score — and governance is the subject of the finding recorded at both inspected services. Precious Hope has no statement scores for that calculation to run on: all three ratings pre-date the scored framework, which cuts both ways — nothing translates forward, and no current-framework evidence base sits on file either.
Illustrative outcome under the draft frameworks · draft Adult Social Care Assessment Framework v9.1, March 2026 · consultation closed 12 June 2026 · pilots June–October 2026 · effect from end 2026 · the descriptors are still in draft
The closest measurable answer to the obvious question. Across England 1,250 homecare services carried a rated Well-led from the previous framework into a rating published under the current one. Splitting them by the Well-led they carried in is where the difference shows.
Share that came out below Good overall under the current framework
149 of the 486 came out below Good overall, and 173 still carried a Well-led below Good (35.6%, against 24.6% of the 764). An unresolved leadership finding taken into the new framework travelled with about half again the rate of landing below Good. That is an association measured across the sector, not a forecast for any one service — and the travel runs both ways: of the 390 that held an overall Requires improvement, 280 came out Good or better, median 2.6 years apart.
One number sharpens why Well-led is the axis rather than the care: of the 441 homecare services currently below Good overall, 98.4% are also below Good on well-led and 94.6% on safe, against 23.8% on caring. A rating here rarely turns on the care itself.
This split is most of what we would walk through live — the 30-minute walkthrough starts from it.
Across the 2,147 rated homecare services these six statements are scored below Good most often. The one at the top is the one both your 2023 reports land on: governance, management and sustainability — the sector’s weakest, and the statement the guide’s worked example uses to pull a whole key question down. Nationally 20.5% of the rated cohort sits below Good.
Cohort average and share below Good per statement across the 2,147 rated homecare services (n per statement 2,140–2,143). These are the sector’s recurring patterns behind a low score, not observations about Precious Hope — none of your three services has scored statements.
All six are what the inspectors recorded, in their words, in the three services’ most recent reports. Two of the three carry credit for improvements made.
At Northampton, inspectors recorded “improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations”. At Leicester, “improvements had been made” — against a breach that stayed open.
Leicester: “Staff were recruited to the service safely”, “People’s medicines were managed safely”. Northampton: “Safe recruitment practices were in place”, “People received their prescribed medicines safely”.
Leicester records “People told us they were safe with the staff who supported them” and “Staff spoke positively about the support they received from the management team”. Northampton, care from a regular, trained team.
Inspectors “identified a breach in relation to governance systems to monitor the service” and recorded “Audit systems required further improvement” — the statement the sector scores lowest.
“Day to day oversight was in place, however, monitoring of themes and trends to drive improvement were not in place” — which is why the Good arrived with Well-led still below it.
“The service has not been rated at this inspection as we did not have enough evidence of the quality of personal care supplied to be able to do this” — one person was receiving care at the time. That report was published 13 April 2021; the March 2018 rating stands.
Everything above is read from outside: three published reports, three registration records and the pattern across 2,147 rated peers. What none of it shows is where Precious Hope’s evidence sits today against the questions the next assessment will ask — governance and audit trails, supervision, medicines, call monitoring, and whether one view of them covers all three services or three separate ones do, as they stand this month rather than in 2023, 2018 and 2017. That is the work of the thirty minutes: we map your real evidence against the incoming questions with you, and you leave knowing your first three priorities rather than guessing at them.
Not a list to work through alone — the agenda for the call, drawn from your three published records. The first three are time-sensitive while the frameworks are in draft; the rest compound.
We’d cover each of these against your live evidence on the call, not hand them over as homework
