Dignity Direct Homecare Ltd - Sheffield

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. People and relatives gave us mixed feedback about the care and support they received. Feedback we received highlighted a variation in the quality of care provided. Some people told us staff appeared rushed due to workload pressures, which impacted the time available to provide personalised support. Concerns were also raised about staff using mobile phones during visits and communication difficulties where some staff had limited English language skills. In addition, isolated concerns relating to infection prevention practices and responsiveness to people's comfort and pain management indicated that people did not always receive care in a manner that consistently promoted dignity, compassion and emotional wellbeing. A person told us, “They (carers) are very kind, patient and polite. They are friendly and helpful. My relationship with the regulars is good. I enjoy their company. Not all the covering staff are adequate. And ‘get on with it’.” Whilst another person said, “I have to keep telling them (staff) to close the door and curtains (during personal care). I’ve got most of them doing it now.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Care records required improvements, to ensure they contained correct, up to date, personalised information, to ensure staff understood each person’s individualised preferences and wishes. A person said, “I’d say they (staff) communicate well and it’s not a problem. They adapt to my problems and figure it out. e.g Having a bed bath or a shower instead.” Whilst a relative said, “They (staff) don’t discuss [name’s] changing needs. They don’t really ask me.”

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Feedback we received from people and relatives meant we could not be assured people always experienced care in a way that promoted choice, control and involvement. Several people told us there was a lack of consistency in care staff, with frequent staff changes, unannounced carers attending visits and poor communication from the office. Some people felt their views were not always sought during reviews of care and support. Concerns were also raised about delays to visits, which meant people were not always supported at their preferred times. These concerns reduced opportunities for people to have consistent support from staff who knew them well and understood their preferences and routines.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Senior staff monitored care tasks and were alerted to any missed care tasks. However, care tasks on the daily system for staff contained some discrepancies to information within the care plan. For example, 1 person’s daily tasks contained detail of using lifting equipment, whilst the care plan did not detail this equipment. We could not be assured that daily tasks were carried out consistently or that care plans contained accurate and up-to-date information for staff to follow.

We also received mixed feedback from people about if staff met their day-to-day needs. A relative told us, “Most of the carers keep [name] safe. We have so many carers. It’s complex how to move [name] out of bed. It’s hard for them (staff) to remember how to do it. A couple of staff took [name] to the toilet which they shouldn’t do. The carers don’t tell me. I usually tell them of [name’s] sore areas. The carers are all different. Some are in a rush to go. They don’t always wash [name] fully. It’s a mixed bag (care). 80% of the carers are okay.” Another person said, “Staff hang around on their mobile phones.”

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. Staff told us they felt well supported by the management team. We received positive feedback from staff about their experience working for the service. Staff were involved in regular team meetings which shared key information about the service and gave staff opportunities to raise suggestions or concerns. A staff member said, “Yes, it is a good place to work. I enjoy supporting people and making a positive difference in their daily lives. Staff morale is generally positive. The team works well together to support the individuals in our care and assist one another during busy periods. The manager is approachable, fair, and open to professional discussions.”