DCI Care Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulations in relation to safe recruitment practices and provision of adequate training. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had not always had a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. The service had not always listened to concerns about safety and had not previously investigated and reported safety events. Lessons had not always been learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Although staff had training on safety in their induction process and there were safety related policies, there had previously not been a culture of investigating incidents and accidents thoroughly and to gain learning from these. Safety investigation processes were now in place, but they had not yet been used in practice and so were not yet embedded in the service culture.

The provider did not always work well with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. They did not always manage or monitor people’s safety. They did not always make sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The service had not always effectively managed the split in responsibilities between accommodation provider and support provider under their service type of Supported Living. A person who had both their support from and accommodation through DCI Care Ltd wanted to end their support from DCI Care but retain their accommodation. This had not been possible, and the person had also had to leave their accommodation. The provider told us they were going to stop providing both accommodation and personal care support in the future. Where the provider was providing a person with accommodation, a tenancy agreement was in place.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

We saw records showing staff had training on Safeguarding and staff told us about this training. The service had worked effectively with safeguarding processes when necessary.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risk assessments were in place to guide staff in areas such as falls, healthcare conditions, and psychological safety. People were involved in their risk assessments and worked with the service to manage risk.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Risk assessments were in place for all people’s accommodation to ensure a safe working environment for staff to deliver care. These were reviewed regularly. Where necessary people had moving and handling equipment in their homes. The service ensured staff were trained to use these and they were in good working order, though not owned by the service.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulations in relation to safe recruitment practices and provision of adequate training. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.

Recruitment records showed recruitment of staff was robust. The service provided support to people in different ways. For example, some staff lived in with the person continuously for several days, and others visited daily for a set amount of time. We found staff arrived on time and stayed for the time set for them to be with the person.

Staff had received appropriate training to carry out their work and were receiving supervision as set out by the service. One staff member said, "Yes, I feel well-trained and prepared to handle the different needs of the people I support, ensuring they receive the best possible care,allowing me to provide safe, effective and compassionate support."

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Staff were supplied with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to carry out their roles and all staff had specific infection control training during their induction training process. Staff also had practical training in how to manage infection control at work. For example, one staff member told us about having a demonstration from a manager on how to wash their hands effectively.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Where the service was responsible for the administration of peoples’ medication, records showed they were given safely and as prescribed. Staff received medication training.