Daily Comfort Healthcare Ltd

Updated 18 June 2025

Date of Assessment: 19 June to 14 July 2025. This was a comprehensive assessment of all 5 key questions triggered by our ongoing monitoring of the service. This was our first inspection of the service. The service is a care at home service providing support to adults of all ages living in their own homes. CQC only inspects where people are receiving the regulated activity personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. At the time of the assessment 23 people were using the service.

The provider was motivated to learn and improve the service for people. However, their overall ambition was limited by a lack of established risk and quality monitoring systems. This meant they had not been aware of the shortfalls we found in relation to recruitment records and people’s risk assessment and risk mitigation plans. Improvements had therefore not been made prior to our inspection.
There was a positive learning culture, where the provider was pro-active in seeking feedback and implanting learning to make improvements. People and relatives knew how to give feedback and were confident the provider took it seriously and acted on it. People were protected and kept safe from abuse. Staff were happy to raise any safety concerns and felt they would be dealt with properly. There were sufficient numbers of staff in place. Some improvement was needed to recruitment records. People were consulted around how they wished their care to be carried out. Staff understood and managed risks related to people’s care. However, risks were not always assessed and documented in people’s care plans. This was also confirmed by professionals involved in people’s care. Safe systems were in place to ensure medicines were administered appropriately where required by competent staff. Staff worked with stakeholders involved in people’s care to promote the best outcomes and safe transitions when people moved between services. The schedule of planned care calls was only allocated to staff on a daily basis, although staff were aware of the area they would be working in. Allocating these calls further out would help staff know who they were working with and give people more notice as to who was supporting them. The registered manager made sure staff received training to maintain high-quality care. Attendance at team meetings was good with meetings being held online. Staff cared for people with dignity and respect and promoted their independence. People were treated with kindness and compassion and had a good level of consistency in care staff.
Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt able to give feedback and were treated equally. The registered manager worked with stakeholders in the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas.
The provider was in breach of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, and good governance.
 

Updated 18 June 2025

We spoke with 5 people, and 7 relatives of people who used the service via telephone calls, to gain feedback about their experiences of receiving care from the provider.
People and relatives we spoke with were positive about staff and told us they felt safe receiving care. One person said, “I feel very safe with their care, including how they respect my home.”
We were also told people received regular staff and alternative staff have usually shadowed with them. This meant staff knew people well.
Feedback on timing of calls was mixed, with people telling us, “Timekeeping is good and they usually ring if they are going to be a bit late” and “Timing can be erratic, but the main thing is they always come, and they ring if they will be over half an hour late.”
Staff followed infection prevention and control processes when delivering care to people. One person told us, “They wear gloves and aprons, always leave things tidy.” Some people and relatives were happy with the support they received with their medicines, with feedback including, “I’m very satisfied with meds (medicines) practice ” and “I’m comfortable with meds practice.”
People and relatives told us staff knew people’s needs well, and they had worked with the provider to give a lot of information at the start of their care package. This included preparing their own detailed care plans. One relative told us, “There was an assessment of needs and the environment before the service started, but we’ve had to fill in a lot of details as experience has grown, what’s worked or hasn’t.” However, we did get feedback from them they had to contact the provider to get them to review their support. One person said, “I’m not aware of a care plan and haven’t had any kind of review.” Whilst a relative told us, “I had to push for a review, I felt they should have been contacting me.”
One relative was very positive about the impact the provider’s care had been on their relative. They told us, “The physical care has been accompanied by strong emotional support. Not only has [relative] put weight back on, [relative] can now walk a surprising distance outside with carer support.”
People said staff were kind and caring. Comments included, “It has been easy to communicate with all the staff, they have been kind and caring” and “Everyone (staff) is lovely.” One relative also told us, “All interactions are friendly and helpful.”
One person told us their care requirements had changed since their support started and the service had adjusted their calls to suit this. They said, “As a result, the afternoon call has been superseded by a telephone call to see if I actually need a visit.”
People and relatives told us they knew staff and leaders well, including visits from the registered manager.