Daily Comfort Healthcare 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 remained requires improvement.

This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

The service was still in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment as risks to people had not always been assessed and planned for. The provider was also still in breach of good governance as records relating to staff’s recruitment were not available.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.
Improvements had not been made following our previous inspection. Although the provider considered some risk to people as part of their assessment, how staff were to support people to reduce the risk of harm was not always clearly documented in people’s care plans. For example, one person who had been assessed as at risk of developing pressure ulcers did not have a risk management plan in place. Staff we spoke with could describe the risks which had been assessed for some people such as mobility and infection related risks. However, they were not aware of the risks related to creams and lotions or pressure ulcers. Other risks for this person had not been robustly considered. We could not see whether staff provided people’s care in accordance with their risk assessments as the provider did not make people’s daily care notes available when requested by CQC.
Where people required creams or lotions, the provider had not considered the fire risk. We told the registered manager of the importance of this whilst onsite (including signposting best practice guidance) and during formal feedback. However, there was no evidence this had been put in place. This put people at risk of poor care as there was not always sufficient guidance for staff how to keep people safe.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider failed to operate safe recruitment systems. Although the provider had a suitable recruitment policy in place, all staff recruitment records were not available. We were only able to review 1 staff recruitment file as the registered manager was unable to provide the other files we requested. The lack of records meant they failed to demonstrate the regulatory information required was available.
People told us they had regular staff supporting them but would like a rota of who was coming, especially when regular staff were not available. The registered manager said they would look to provide rotas for people where they wanted one.
Staff received supervisions, and annual appraisals. They also had spot checks to observe the quality of care being provided. However, recording of these was not always accurate to show the dates these occurred.
Training for staff across mandatory subjects was up to date and met national guidance. Staff training was a combination of in-house or external face to face and online, with the registered manager being train the trainer qualified.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.