Delight Services Limited Also known as Delight Care

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Requires Improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 54 (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 review and monitoring procedures were not sufficiently robust to ensure people’s individual needs were clearly assessed, known, understood and planned for. Guidance for staff lacked detail.

The provider’s systems and processes for assessing and reviewing people’s care needs required strengthening to demonstrate that assessments and reviews were accurate, up to date and informed by all relevant information.

People’s assessments and care plans contained multiple gaps in information and guidance for staff. This risk was mitigated only because people received care from consistent staff who knew them well. For example, a person’s care records dated September 2025 stated an occupational therapist had completed a risk assessment that staff should follow, but no details of this were provided. A lack of detailed and current information increased the risk of inconsistent care delivery when care was provided by staff unfamiliar with the person, affecting safety and person‑centred care.

Information was also contradictory. One person’s records stated their food nutrition and fluid intake should be monitored, while another record stated this was not required. The registered manager told us no person needed food and fluid monitoring. Daily care call records were inconsistent, and when food and fluid intake was recorded, amounts were not detailed. This showed assessment, care planning and recording processes were inconsistent and did not reliably reflect people’s needs or guide safe care.

People and relatives confirmed the registered manager met with them face to face to review care. However, the sample of review documents we saw did not record who participated or what was discussed.

One person’s review from February 2026 stated, “medication prompting and logging.” Their care plan and risk assessment also referred to ‘prompting’. However, their relative told us this had changed to ‘administering’ medicines. This change and the reason for it had not been documented, this further demonstrated a lack of up‑to‑date guidance for staff and increased the risk of care needs not being met.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did not always follow legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider’s policies were inconsistent in quality and detail, and some lacked reference to relevant legislation or best practice guidance. This meant staff did not have clear, reliable or up‑to‑date information to support safe, lawful and consistent care delivery.

We also identified where the provider’s policy and best practice guidance had not been followed, as reported in the Key Question of Safe Medicines Optimisation.

Additionally, there was a lack of recognised assessment tools used to support the registered manager to effectively assess people’s care needs, mitigate risks and monitor any changes.

The provider’s systems and processes that supported how well they worked across teams and services to support people needed strengthening to ensure consistency was delivered. There lacked a procedure to support people to only have to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The provider had developed communication and ways of working, where staff were supported and information shared. Staff were positive about the team’s approach, support and communication practice. However, the registered manager told us they did not always maintain records of discussions and actions. An example of this was a monthly face to face meeting they had with staff. The registered manager told us these meetings were useful, supportive and productive but were not recorded. This meant there was no formal evidence of what was discussed, agreed or actioned, limiting oversight and the ability to track improvements or address issues consistently and hold staff to account.

A staff member said, “We have staff meetings during the year to discuss important stuff. We also have a face to face meeting with the manager once a month. The manager is very good, they provide support, they constantly call on a daily basis, to check how we're doing, follows up on anything, I find they are very supportive.”

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Whilst staff were attentive and responsive to people’s health and well-being, the shortfall was in the guidance for staff about people’s known health conditions. There was a lack of guidance for staff about people’s known health conditions and how this impacted them, and their care and support needs. From discussions with staff, they clearly knew people they cared for. However, if staff unfamiliar with the person such as new or temporary staff, needed to provide care, the absence of clear guidance and essential information may have compromised safety and led to inconsistent or inappropriate care and support.

The registered manager told us and a staff member agreed, that some staff had completed specific training in relation to people’s health conditions. A staff member said, “I’ve completed training in Parkinson’s Disease.” However, the training matrix did not reflect this, suggesting training records were not being accurately maintained.

A relative told us they had provided staff with a meal plan outlining suitable meal choices for their family member. They were concerned that staff still asked the person what they wanted to eat without offering the planned options.

Staff gave examples of supporting people to attend health appointments. They told us providing care to the same people consistently helped them recognise changes in health needs and enabled them to quickly seek support from relatives or the GP when required.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

As described in the Key Question Safe; Involving people to manage risks and medicines optimisation, people’s clinical needs and expectations were not consistently met.

People’s care delivery was not consistently outcome focussed. Whilst care reviews were happening, the review document did not record who participated, what was discussed or recorded agreed actions. This meant important information that could improve people’s outcomes and experience of care was not consistently captured or acted upon.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) is a law in England and Wales that protects and empowers people aged 16+ who may lack the ability to make certain decisions for themselves. It sets out clear principles for assessing capacity, making decisions in someone’s best interests, and supporting people to be as involved as possible.

At the tihe of the inspection, people were able to consent to their care. We discussed with the registered manager their role and responsibilities should a person lack mental capacity to consent, and the actions they would be required to take. We suggested to the registered manager they would benefit from refresher training to update their knowledge. The registered manager agreed to do this.

A person who used the service and relatives told us they were involved in in discussions about their care. Care review records, however did not reflect this.

A staff member demonstrated good awareness of the principles of the MCA. They told us that the person they currently supported had capacity to consent to their care. However, they advised of the person’s deterioration in both their physical and mental health and recognised their mental capacity may decline in the near future and an MCA assessment may be required.