Daffodil Care 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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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 in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment.

This service scored 59 (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 always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider did not always have effective systems to monitor and review people's feedback. This meant opportunities to identify trends, learn from concerns and take timely action were missed. The lack of oversight increased the risk of people not receiving their planned care and support when needed, which could negatively impact their safety, wellbeing and outcomes.

People were supported through working relationships with family members and relevant professionals to help maintain their safety and wellbeing.

Staff understood the importance of sharing information and described how they escalated concerns to management and external professionals when needed. However, records did not consistently evidence the guidance provided by professionals or the actions taken in response. This meant it was not always possible to demonstrate how information had been used to support safe care, effective decision making and continuity of support.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff had completed safeguarding training and were able to explain how concerns should be recognised and reported internally and externally

Safeguarding information was accessible within the service, and the registered manager and staff demonstrated an understanding of their responsibilities to protect people.For example, staff had reported missed medication appropriately so actions could be taken to reduce risk.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2025 and the importance of supporting people to make their own decisions wherever possible. This helped to promote people's rights and support their independence while ensuring appropriate action could be taken if concerns about safety arose. One staff member told us they would use information in the care plan to guide them in ensuring decision making was offered to a person in manner which was appropriate. For example, ensuring any hearing aids required were worn and in working order, speak calmly in short sentences with time allowed for the person to respond.

.

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.

People were not always protected from risks to their health, safety and wellbeing because risk assessments and supporting protocols were not consistently in place or person centred.

Care plans and risk assessments did not always provide clear guidance for staff on how identified risks should be managed. Information was sometimes limited, inconsistent or did not reflect people's current needs and support arrangements. However, staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's individual needs and associated risks. Staff we spoke with were familiar with the people they supported and were able to describe how they provided safe care in line with people's preferences and assessed needs.

Although no evidence of harm was identified during the assessment, the potential risk of harm was increased because records did not clearly and consistently reflect people's needs. We discussed our findings with the provider who took immediate action to address concerns.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider had conducted risk assessments of people’s homes as part of the assessment process. Where assessments had identified environmental risks, steps were taken to ensure environments remained safe for the delivery of care. For example, where loose rugs were in place discussions had been held with families to agree removing of the rug to reduce risk of trips.

Staff had received training and understood their responsibilities for using equipment including hoists and hospital beds safely, and for reporting concerns promptly.

People were not always supported by effective recruitment, training and oversight processes to ensure safe care was consistently delivered. Recruitment records did not always contain a full employment history, evidence that gaps in employment had been explored or confirmation that references had been verified. This meant safe recruitment procedures had not always been followed.

Staff told us they had received a thorough induction which included training, shadowing of staff and checks of their competence in delivering safe care. However, records evidencing training, induction and competency checks had not been consistently completed.

Systems for supervision and appraisal were not consistently implemented. Records did not always demonstrate staff had received regular opportunities to reflect on practice, discuss development needs or receive formal support. Despite these concerns, people told us they received care from regular staff who understood their needs and staff were able to describe the support they provided to people. One person said, “(Family member) has received care for 3 years and has the same carer, who has got to know (family member) very well. There is a real trust and rapport between them. The carer knows exactly how to manage (family members’) mobility safely and what works best. We feel (family member) is safe with their carer."

The provider had enough staff to meet people's needs; however, governance systems had not identified or addressed the recruitment, training and support concerns found during the assessment.

The provider had systems in place to reduce the risk of infection. Staff told us they had access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) to support safe care delivery and reduce the risk of infection. Staff had completed infection prevention and control training and advised how unannounced checks took place which included observations of safe and appropriate infection prevention and control practice.

Staff understood their responsibilities for maintaining good hygiene standards and reducing the risk of cross infection. People were supported in a way that promoted their safety and wellbeing while helping to prevent the spread of infection. One person told us, “The carers are very good with hygiene and PPE.”

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

People were not always supported to receive their medicines safely because medicines management systems were not consistently effective.

Staff had received medicine administration training and stated a spot check of their competency had been completed before working alone supporting people with their medicines. However, records reviewed during this inspection were unable to evidence the checks completed. Staff we spoke with were familiar with people and their personal preference in taking prescribed medicine. Staff were aware of their role and responsibility when administering medication.

People commented positively on staff practice and knowledge of safe administration of medicine. Comments included, “Staff manage (family member) medication well." And “Staff are consistent with medication administration.”

Care plans did not always contain information about people's medicines, risks associated with their medicines or the support required from staff. Not all people who received medicines prescribed on a when required (PRN) basis had clear protocols in place to guide staff on when these medicines should be administered.

Records showed medicines were administered and recorded. However, there were gaps in supporting documentation which meant staff did not always have access to clear, person-centred guidance.

Although medicines policies and procedures were in place, governance and audit systems had not identified or addressed all the concerns found during the assessment.

Following feedback, the provider took action to address issues identified.