Delight Services Limited Also known as Delight Care

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Requires Improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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 consistently make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. They did not always work in partnership with people, to ensure staff had detailed guidance to support them to deliver care and treatment that was based on people’s individual care needs, routines and preferences.

Whilst a person who used the service and relatives confirmed they had been involved in the pre-assessment and ongoing care reviews; they told us they had not received a copy of their care plan. They were therefore unable to confirm information recorded. From reviewing a sample of 3 people’s pre-assessments and care plans, as already described in the previous Key Questions we identified multiple gaps in guidance and important information about people’s care needs.

The registered manager was passionate about delivering person‑centred care, and we respected their commitment. However, the provider’s systems and processes lacked the structure, consistency and oversight needed to ensure this approach was reliably embedded in practice and evidenced across people’s care records.

Overall, from speaking with staff they clearly had developed positive relationships with people and their families. They showed genuine interest in people’s lives, understood what was important to them, and adapted their approach to reflect each person’s preferences, routines and communication style.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The registered manager ensured they allocated consistent staff to support people. This was a positive approach for people receiving care and for staff. It enabled trusting relationships to develop, continuity in how care was delivered, and a better understanding of people’s individual needs, routines and preferences.

Staff gave examples of how they accompanied some people to GP appointments and community clinics, ensuring people received timely healthcare and understood follow‑up advice. Staff also gave examples supporting some people go shopping that enabled them to develop local community links and maintain their independence.

The registered manager told us how they made referrals to external health and social care professionals to ensure people’s needs were met. This included an example of liaising with an occupational therapist and adult social care.

The provider did not consistently supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Whilst we requested a copy of the provider’s Service User Guide to review what information was provided to people about the service, this was not received. People were unable to confirm if they had a copy of this information. This meant we were unable to determine whether people had been given the essential information they needed to understand the service, their rights, and what they could expect from their care.

The Accessible Information Standard (is a legal requirement for social care providers to ensure information and communication is provided in a way that meets people’s needs and can be understood) was being met.

From reviewing people’s pre‑assessment and care plan information, communication needs and guidance for staff were significantly limited. One person’s communication needs section was left blank, and another person’s recorded need was “face‑to‑face,” despite having a health condition known to affect speech and a staff member confirming their communication was impacted. This means staff did not have the information they needed to understand how best to communicate with people, increasing the risk of unmet needs, reduced involvement in decision‑making, and care that was not person‑centred.

The provider’s Provider Information Return (PIR) dated October 2025 (This is a document that care providers must submit to (CQC). It gives key information about the service). Stated ‘We regularly review communication plans with service users and their families to ensure needs are still being met, especially if their health or cognitive ability changes over time. Feedback from our service users, including those from minority and seldom-heard groups, directly informs improvements to our service delivery. We also work in partnership with advocacy organisations and community groups to stay up to date with emerging best practices around accessible communication.’ We found no evidence to support this statement. Whilst we asked the provider to forward their Accessible Information Standard policy this was not received. We asked to review people’s feedback, but the registered manager told us they did not invite people via a survey or questionnaire to share their experience of the service.

The registered manager told us they would provide information at request in alternative formats if required.

The provider’s systems and processes were not robust to support people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The provider’s review process needed strengthening to ensure people were fully involved in decisions about their care.

We were not sufficiently assured by the provider’s complaint policy. For example, the policy referred to young people only, despite the fact that the service is not registered for young people. This meant policies were not consistently tailored to the needs of the people who used the service.

On the day of the inspection site visit, the registered manager told us they had not received any formal complaints, and any ‘minor’ concerns were resolved immediately but were not recorded. However, the providers electronic call monitoring and internal audit record dated February 2026 referred to complaints being reduced. This clearly indicated that complaints had been received. The provider did not provide an explanation for this discrepancy. The absence of corresponding records demonstrates of lack of accountability effective recording and analysis and highlights poor oversight of complaint handling within the service.

One relative told us they did not know what the complaint procedure was. However, they and another relative told us they felt confident to raise any concerns directly with the registered manager who they believed would respond. People told us where complaints and or concerns had been raised these had been investigated and improvements made.

The registered manager also told us they did not invite people or their relatives to complete surveys or questionnaires to share their experience or feedback as part of their quality assurance process. The registered manager told us feedback was sought from review meetings. However, from reviewing a sample of care plan reviews, people and relatives feedback was not recorded. The providers internal audit also recorded ‘service user satisfaction was at 96%’. It was unclear how people’s satisfaction was measured, what feedback mechanisms were used, or how the 96% figure was obtained. A lack of recording evidence meant there was no reliable assurance that people and relative views were being captured, analysed, or used to drive improvements within the service.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service was responsive to people’s changing needs. A person who used the service and relatives told us how flexible the service was. Comments included, “Staff are very flexible with their hours and duties.”

Staff were aware of their role and responsibilities in relation to escalating concerns to the registered manager to protect people from experiencing any barriers to their care and support.

The registered manager was described by a person who used the service, relatives and staff as being, “responsive and supportive.”

The provider had an equality and diversity policy, providing guidance on the importance of treating people equally. This was further supported by staff training.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Not all people who used the service had formal or informal support or representatives. The registered manager continually oversaw their care and supported them well with all aspects of their life. This included making referrals to external agencies for assessment and support when required.

The service was flexible and adaptable in supporting people to achieve positive outcomes. For example, supporting people to live in the community as independently as possible.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People did not have end of life care plans. The registered manager told us they had approached this subject with a person who refused to engage and discuss.

Whilst we reviewed 1 person’s care records that reflected their Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) plan and saw this advised staff where the document was kept, no information was recorded for others. Pre-assessments were repeatedly blank in relation to people’s end of life plans such as DNACPR or other similar plans. It was difficult to determine whether people had documents in place detailing their future end‑of‑life decisions or not. This meant the provider’s systems and process were not sufficiently robust to ensure people’s wishes were known and understood. Impacting in staff providing responsive and safe care in line with people’s wishes.