- Homecare service
Dynamic Support
Report from 12 May 2025 assessment
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 16 May to 17 June 2025. We assessed a small number of quality statements from the safe, effective, responsive and well-led key questions and found areas of good practice. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the key question ratings from the last inspection.
Though the assessment of these 5 quality statements indicated areas of good practice since the last inspection, our overall rating remains good with outstanding in effective. This inspection was to follow up concerns we received. This includes how well led the service was, whether people were receiving personalised care, staff recruitment and training, whether consent was sought and medicines management.
The registered manager led with compassion, knowledge and inclusivity. Staff described the leadership as supportive and empowering, with a strong focus on learning and improvement. People and relatives praised the manager for delivering care that exceeded expectations.
People consistently enjoyed their care and support. Staff treated people with kindness and respect, creating a warm and safe environment. Relatives confirmed their loved ones felt happy, safe and well cared for.
Managers used clear systems to ensure high-quality, person-centred care. They involved staff and people in service improvements and sought external reviews. The team acted on feedback and maintained accountability at all levels.
Staff always offered people choices and respected their decisions. The service supported people to make informed decisions, even when they lacked capacity. Managers advocated for people’s rights and involved those important in key decision.
Staff tailored care to each person’s needs and preferences. Activities were meaningful and based on individual interests. Staff used personalised communication methods and responded quickly to change in needs.
Staff protected people from harm and responded quickly to concerns. They involved people and families in managing risks and encouraged positive risk taking. Managers ensured staff followed clear safeguarding procedures and worked with external partners.
Staff administered medicines safely and according to people’s preferences. They worked with prescribers to reduce unnecessary medication. Managers addressed a minor issue with unused medicine promptly.
Managers created a culture where people and staff felt safe to raise concerns. Staff knew how to report issues and trusted that managers would act. People and relatives confirmed that the service responded to feedback.
We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
People's experience of this service
People had a positive experience receiving support from staff to keep them safe and ensure a good quality of life. All interactions between people and staff observed were positive. People clearly had a good relationship with staff and management. Interactions were personalised to each individual.
Relatives all felt their family members were being kept safe and had risks managed. Comments included, “Name is living his best life. I am thrilled. No worries” and, “[They are] safe, could not be any safer. They look after him very well.” People were encouraged to positive risk take. One relative told us about being involved in managing risks, “[They] managed risks here…keep an eye on him at all times.” Others told us they were heavily involved in risk management during their family member’s transition. This needed to be less now staff members knew their family member well.
People were supported by enough staff to meet their needs and fulfil their wishes. They were regularly accessing the community as individuals. One person excitedly told us about where they had been and what they had eaten that day. Other examples were heard from staff and people where they had been when arriving home. Relatives were positive about the staffing levels. Comments included, “Definitely well staffed”, “Always enough staff. Team of people who know [name]” and, “Always someone designated to be with [name].”
People and their relatives felt medicines were managed safely and in line with people’s needs. One relative explained there had been a positive reduction in the use of ‘as required’ medicines when their family member became distressed. Another family told us they had a positive relationship with staff when it came to their family member’s medicines.
People were fully involved in making choices for themselves where they could. We observed staff respecting choices made by people. For example, where they spent time in the house and how the group houses were managed. Relatives spoke about being involved in specific decisions for those lacking capacity. Comments included, “He cannot consent and if a problem they ring us” and, “I am [involved in decisions]. I know him very well. I know what he wants.”
People experienced person-centred support. Activities were in line with people’s needs and wishes. This included developing positive relationships with other organisations. Communication was individualised to the person and interactions were always positive. Relatives were positive about people’s experience. Comments listed many activities the person was participating in. Relatives felt all communication was personalised to their family members.
People experienced an incredibly positive relationship with the management including the registered manager. Throughout time spent in the office people were coming to visit. People greeted the office staff and registered manager as though they were familiar friends. Relatives were positive about the management. One relative said, “Last week the manager came in and saw the [people] and talked.” Relatives felt comfortable to speak up and listened to.