DCI Care Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has remained as requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation. We were assured effective systems and processes were now in place but were still to embed into the operation of the service.

This service scored 61 (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 did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Leaders respected people’s equal rights and knew about workforce inequalities. However, leaders had limited understanding of some legislation and national guidance and so could not put best practice into place in the service. For example, there was a lack of understanding of how to work within the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) in community settings to ensure the rights of people who did not have capacity to consent to support. During our assessment we saw a commitment from the provider to address this.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively.

The service’s leaders either had considerable experience but not enough time to be in control of the whole service, or were enthusiastic but had less knowledge and experience of how to provide management and leadership. Leaders were visible within the service and led by example to their staff team, demonstrating inclusive behaviours. However, leaders were not aware of some areas of legislation or the local support that would be beneficial to them to access guidance and development knowledge to support them in their roles.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff had access to regular supervision and support from leaders, promoting staff involvement in the service. Staff we spoke with felt able to raise concerns to leaders.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff told us they worked well as a team, and they did what they could to help each other. Staff members told us how leaders supported their personal life in the UK having come from other countries to work in social care. They said leaders helped them and were flexible to ensure they were supported and settled in the UK.

The provider had not always had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They had not always acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or shared this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to having effective systems and processes operating in the service. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation. We were assured that effective systems and processes were now in place, but were still to embed into the operation of the service.

The 24 hour 7 days per week, ‘On call’ system was important in the service to support staff as they delivered support to some people with complex needs or where they ‘lived in’ with the person to help staff meet the challenges of these situations. However, this on call responsibility was shared between only 2 managers in the service. These leaders said they were working to identify others to be involved in the ‘on call’ system so this system was sustainable. Further management resource was being involved in the management of care teams and to deliver more support for staff. At present, the supervision of staff was adequate but limited.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

For example, the service had supported people to have appropriate referrals made and people were supported to access health and social care professionals and appointments.

The provider had not always focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They had not always encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They had not always actively contributed to safe and effective practice.

Whilst we did identify some shortfalls during this assessment, the service leaders were responsive to our findings and acted responsively during our assessment on key areas for improvement and learning. We were assured service leaders had the ability to overcome the areas where their knowledge and experience was limited and to embed the new culture of learning and improvement in the service.