- Homecare service
Dignity Direct Homecare Ltd - Sheffield
Assessment report published 1 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 2 September 2026. The service is a Domiciliary Care Agency, providing support and personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 113 people were using the service.
At our last assessment the provider was in breach of legal regulations in relation to safeguarding, managing risks, managing medicines and governance. Whilst we found some systems were in now in place, improvements were required to fully embed and use these in practice. We found continued breaches in relation to safeguarding, managing risks, managing medicines and governance at this assessment. The service has a continued rating of requires improvement.
Whilst we found no evidence of harm to people, feedback from people and their relatives identified concerns regarding the reliability and consistency of care delivery. We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives regarding frequent late visits, high staff turnover, inconsistent care staff and poor communication from the provider regarding changes to rotas and staffing. Concerns were also raised about communication barriers, and staff members infection prevention practices. Care records were not always kept up to date and contained conflicting information about risks posed to people, and how these should be managed. Systems for recording and monitoring accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns were not always effective, and the management team did not consistently monitor these to ensure lessons could be learned. Medicines were not always managed safely and effectively.
Systems were not always effective in ensuring people received care and support that met their assessed needs. Care plans contained discrepancies and lacked detailed information about people's health conditions, associated risks and support requirements, which meant staff were not always provided with clear and up-to-date guidance. Records did not consistently evidence how care was delivered in line with advice from external healthcare professionals, and there was limited information to demonstrate people were supported to achieve their desired outcomes. In addition, records relating to consent were incomplete and contained conflicting information regarding people's capacity to make decisions.
We could not be assured people always received responsive, person-centred care. Care records contained inaccuracies, conflicting information and omissions relating to people's needs, preferences and health support, which increased the risk of inconsistent care. Although staff worked with external professionals and supported people to access healthcare services and community activities, records did not always contain sufficient information to ensure continuity of care or effective monitoring of people's outcomes. People and relatives provided mixed feedback about feeling listened to, and we found weaknesses in the management of complaints, with not all complaints being captured or analysed for themes and trends.
We found leaders had established a clear management structure, values and systems to support the operation of the service, and staff spoke positively about the support they received, team morale and opportunities to provide feedback. Staff were recruited safely and had undertaken all relevant training in relation to their roles. However, governance and oversight arrangements were not always effective in identifying and addressing concerns. Audits and monitoring processes had not identified the concerns found during this assessment, including inaccuracies and inconsistencies within care records, medicines management and the oversight of incidents and complaints.
Feedback from people and relatives regarding leadership was mixed, with some expressing concerns about communication, organisation and the accessibility of the management team. Although the provider had implemented improvement plans and was working with partner agencies, some concerns identified at previous assessments remained. This meant quality assurance systems had not been sufficiently embedded to drive and sustain improvements or provide leaders with effective oversight of the quality, safety and performance of the service.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with people who used the service and their relatives to gain their feedback about their care and support. We received mixed feedback from people and relatives. People described variation in the quality and consistency of care they received, with some reporting staff appeared rushed and were not always able to spend sufficient time providing personalised support. Care records were not always accurate, up to date or sufficiently detailed to ensure staff understood people's individual preferences, wishes and support needs. In addition, some people felt they were not consistently involved in decisions about their care and support, and concerns about staff continuity and communication reduced opportunities for people to build trusting relationships with staff who knew them well. A person told us, “All are different (the staff). Pleasant and polite. But they are varied people. Some are very very good. Some are quiet and others chatty. Some just want to go.” And a relative said, “Some (staff) communicate with us. I don’t know their culture. Some are very caring, but some have an attitude.”