Alas Healthcare (Leeds)

Dates of assessment: 21 January 2026 to 20 February 2026. Alas Healthcare (Leeds) is a domiciliary care agency, providing care and support to people living in their own homes. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. This was the service’s first assessment. At the time of our assessment, we were informed that Alas Healthcare (Leeds) was supporting 2 people, however during the course of the assessment we established 1 person was in hospital and the second person was supported by another of the provider’s services. By the end of this assessment the service had been commissioned to support 1 person with personal care.The provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to staffing.We identified concerns with staffing. Recruitment files contained missing or unreliable references and 1 invalid identification check. Staff supervision documentation lacked staff signatures. Audits had not identified these issues.The service had some processes and policies in place to support safety, including systems for incident reporting and staff understanding of their responsibilities. Safeguarding arrangements were in place and staff had received appropriate training, understood how to raise concerns, and worked with people to promote safety and prevent abuse. The provider had a vision and strategy for the service; however, staff did not consistently demonstrate awareness or understanding of these objectives. Some employees were also unclear about the designated office base for the service.Leadership capacity was constrained, as the registered manager held responsibility for multiple sites across the country and was present at the service’s primary office only two days per week. In addition, the people supported by the service were located across a wide geographical area, which further limited operational oversight and reduced direct managerial visibility of day‑to‑day service delivery. Despite these challenges, staff felt supported by the registered manager and described a positive culture where they could raise concerns. Some governance structures were in place and used to monitor quality and risk effectively. Due to insufficient evidence, several quality statements could not be judged, and we have been unable to rate the service at key question level and overall.