Darethealthcare UK Limited

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 good. At this assessment the rating remains good.

Good: This meant the service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to identify and embed good practice.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People told us that they were happy with the service that they received and had had no reason to complain.

Risks to people were considered and incidents were learned from. The manager had investigated a safeguarding incident and provided learning to staff whilst remaining person centred. The service had a policy which showed which incidents should be reported as notifications to the Care Quality Commission (CQC).The manager said there had been no incidents of note reported to her either by staff or people who were supported and we saw one notification that had been made to the Care Quality Commission in two years.

Staff were not always clear on what incidents and accidents they should report but did say they would tell the manager if something happened.

We saw documents that showed the service recognised concerns raised, took appropriate steps to investigate and where issues were identified, provided training and relevant action to mitigate future risk. However, records were not always consistent. We saw a person’s feedback which highlighted unhappiness with one member of staff and no action had been documented. We also saw a concern raised regarding another member of staff that had shown action taken and positive feedback from the person being supported as a consequence.

The manager told us staff are always welcome to raise concerns or issues and would take action to support people and staff to keep them safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

People told us they felt supported by both carers and by the manager.

We saw notes identifying concerns regarding people’s health and implementation of specific monitoring such as weight monitoring for a person at risk of malnutrition. We saw that care plans were person centred and documented what risks people lived with and how staff were able to reduce the risk of harm through the care that was delivered,

Staff were aware of when to contact healthcare partners such as people's doctors or the district nurse, or instances that they would contact 111 or 999 for emergency care.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. However not all staff understood how to safeguard people from abuse.

People told us that they felt safe and trusted staff that cared for them, one person told us “I would call if I needed to and I would have no hesitation. I have a good relationship with the office and the carers”.

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.

Staff received training on safeguarding online annually and training records confirmed all staff were shown as currently trained. Some staff did not understand the safeguarding process and could not describe what incidents they would report. However, one staff said, "We are here to protect and care for people and if we can’t do that, we shouldn’t be carers”.

We saw a safeguarding referral which documented an incident and the actions taken by the provider, this reviewed staff actions and documented lessons learned to keep people and staff safe.

The Registered Manager said staff were trained in safeguarding annually, however if the service identified issues the service would organise additional training.

The provider worked well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Feedback from people using the service indicated they felt safe and supported, and that staff understood their individual needs and risks.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to support people safely and feedback from staff suggested they knew people well and could describe how they managed risks in practice. Staff knew the people they supported well; people told us the support was consistent and this knowledge helped staff recognise when people needed more support.

Care plans documented risks associated with people and gave guidance on safe support for carers. The provider considered risk to people as part of their assessment, which included personal care, moving and handling and health conditions. People, where appropriate, were encouraged and supported to participate in daily tasks. For example, people were encouraged to make their meals with staff instead of the meals being made for them.

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

All people we spoke to told us the provider made a full assessment of them and their environment before they received care.

As care was provided in people’s homes the provider ensured that key areas of risk were assessed when people were referred for care to the company.

The provider carried out assessments of people’s home environments to identify and reduce any risks related to the delivery of care. The manager told us that all people had a fire risk assessment carried out by the local fire service, however we only saw this document in one person’s care plan.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They did not always make sure staff received effective support, supervision and development.

People were at risk of receiving unsafe care because the service did not have a healthcare agreement with a qualified professional to oversee and delegate clinical tasks. We saw a competency assessment of catheter care by the quality assessment lead; however they were not qualified to complete that assessment. This meant the service did not fully meet safe practice requirements. After our inspection the provider ensured all staff were trained in catheter care and were seeking support from a qualified health professional to provide delegated healthcare.

Though staff had received training in diabetes, some staff who supported people with diabetes were unable to say how they would recognise symptoms of sickness related to that condition.

The manager told us all new staff received training in core functions which are refreshed every 3 years or annually. All staff received an induction and a shadowing period where they are assessed by managers and the quality assurance lead. Senior staff reviewed daily notes to oversee the care provided remotely.

The Registered Manager told us staff are trained in mandatory subjects and performance was monitored through unannounced checks and feedback from the people they supported.

People told us staff were trained and competent in caring for them and they felt safe. A family member of a person supported told us “They are very good with them and they get the same carers so knows them well and is comfortable with them.”

Staff told us they had enough training and felt confident supporting people.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The providers Infection Prevention Control (IPC) policy showed the registered manager as the IPC lead and should be notified of any issues. We saw Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)was stored in the provider’s office that was in date and available for staff for collection. All staff were shown as current in their training for infection control which is refreshed every 3 years.

People told us that staff consistently wore PPE and followed good hygiene and infection control practices. Staff were provided with gloves, aprons and where required face masks that complied with current standards.

Staff told us they always used gloves and understood the importance of good hygiene to keep people safe.

Care plans showed how staff should maintain hygiene and document signs and symptoms that could indicate when to contact health care professionals.

The service audited staff on key areas of care and IPC whilst they supported people in their homes.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Care plans documented medicines that people were prescribed including common side effects to guide staff in keeping people safe. A review of medication administration records (MAR) showed that people had been given the same medicines at the same time of day, which kept them safe

The manager told us that staff checked peoples medicine stock that was kept at people’s homes monthly or when medicines were changed. This was overseen and evidenced to the manager through photographs sent to them. This is important to ensure that people have been taking their medicines in line with prescription and that the medicine was in date. All staff had been provided medication procedures training in 2025 and received refresher training every annually and this was confirmed in the providers training records.

Staff told us most people managed their own medication but if they refused to take it, they would immediately inform the manager.