You are here

Archived: District Carers Limited Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 28 July 2017

The inspection took place on 15 and 16 June 2017 and was announced.

District Carers Limited provides personal care to people care in their own homes. At the time of the inspection personal care was provided to 123 people whose ages ranged from 42 to 99 years and had needs such as physical disability, sensory impairment, dementia and frailty due to old age.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the previous inspection of 3 May 2016 we found the provider had not ensured assessments of risk were adequate to ensure those risks would be mitigated. We made a requirement for this regulation to be met. The provider sent us an action plan of how this was to be addressed and at this inspection we found the regulation was met.

At the previous inspection of 3 May 2016 we recommended the provider put in place a plan for formal supervision of staff as we found staff supervision was inconsistent. At this inspection we found staff supervision was well organised and included observations of staff working with people in their homes to check their competency. Staff told us they felt supported in their work.

Since the last inspection the provider has implemented an IT system whereby each staff member has smart phone which included all the relevant information about their daily work including people’s care plans. Staff completed their daily records on these. The system had a number of benefits to people, staff and the management; for example people and relatives could make comments by directly accessing the records. We noted the system needed to have time to embed as there were a few problems with it. These included staff not being able to fully access the system at times due to poor connectivity. We also noted the IT records did not always have details of people’s medicines. We have made a recommendation regarding the monitoring of care and medicines records.

Staff were trained in adult safeguarding procedures and knew what to do if they considered people were at risk of harm or if they needed to report any suspected abuse. People said the staff provided safe care.

Sufficient numbers of staff were provided so people’s care needs were safely met. People commented that care staff attended at the agreed times. Since the last inspection we received two complaints that staff did not always attend to people at the agreed times. We looked into this during the inspection by asking people about this and by looking at records; these allegations could not be substantiated. We sent surveys to people to ask for their comments about the service; one person and one relative said they did not always get a weekly rota supplied. We spoke to six people or their relatives and these all confirmed they received a weekly rota detailing which staff were coming to see them.

People generally received their medicines safely, although we noted the record system used by the staff did not always detail people’s prescribed medicines which staff needed to administer. This was isolated to two occasions and is referred to in the Well Led section of this report.

Staff were trained in a range of relevant subjects such as moving and handling, dementia awareness, infection control, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and food hygiene. Newly appointed staff received induction training to prepare them for their role.

The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. The service had policies and procedures regarding the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff were trained in the MCA and had a good awareness of the legislation. People were consulted and had agreed to the arrang

Inspection areas



Updated 28 July 2017

The service was safe.

The service had policies and procedures on safeguarding people from possible abuse. Staff knew what to do if they suspected any abuse had occurred.

Risks to people were assessed and guidance recorded so staff knew how to reduce risks to people.

Staffing was provided to meet people�s assessed needs.

People received their medicines safely, although we identified the care records were not always up to date.



Updated 28 July 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were trained in a number of relevant areas and had access to nationally recognised qualifications in care. Staff were supported by regular supervision and appraisal of their work.

People�s consent was obtained before staff provided care. The service had policies and procedures regarding the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and staff had a good understanding of the principles of the MCA.

People were supported with eating and drinking where this was needed.

Health care needs were monitored and people were supported so they received the appropriate health care.



Updated 28 July 2017

The service was caring.

Staff had values of compassion and treated people with dignity and respect. Staff had good working relationships with people and provided care in a way which made people feel they mattered.

People were involved in decisions about their care which was personalised to meet needs and to suit people�s personal preferences.

People�s privacy was promoted in the way they were treated by staff.



Updated 28 July 2017

The service was responsive.

People�s needs were comprehensively assessed. Care plans were of a good standard with details of how people needed to be supported. People were consulted about their care.

People�s social needs were assessed and staff provided people with companionship.

The service had a complaints procedure and people knew what to do if they wished to raise a concern. Records showed any complaints were looked into, although people and their relatives gave mixed views about whether their complaints were dealt with to their satisfaction.


Requires improvement

Updated 28 July 2017

The service was not always well-led.

A new system of recording people�s care needs had a number of advantages so staff, people and relatives could access and record information. The system, however, had some shortcomings which needed to be addressed.

The service sought the views of people as part of its quality assurance process.

There were a number of systems for checking and auditing the safety and quality of the service.