- Homecare service
Dignity Direct Homecare Limited
We served a warning notice on Dignity Direct Homecare Limited for failing to meet the regulations related to staffing, safe care and treatment and good governance at Dignity Direct Homecare Limited.
Assessment report published 19 November 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 29 and 30 July and 19 August 2025.
Dignity Direct Homecare Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. People had medical conditions, mobility and nutrition needs. At the time of the assessment, 53 people who used the service received personal care.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. In this service, the Care Quality Commission can only inspect the service received by people who get support with personal care. This includes help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where people receive such support, we also consider any wider social care provided.
During our previous in September 2024, we found the provider was in breach of six regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, effective staffing, person centred care, need for consent, good governance and fit and proper persons employed. As a result, we served warning notices (WN) for regulation 17 (Good governance) regulation 12 (Safe care and treatment) and for regulation 18 (Staffing). We further issued requirement notices for regulation 11 (Need for consent) and regulation 9 (Person-centred care).
At this assessment, we found the provider failed to make improvements and remained in repeat breaches of regulation 9 (Person-centred care), regulation 11 (Need for consent), and they failed to meet the WNs for regulation 18 (Staffing) and regulation 17 (Good governance). This meant people continued to remain at risk of receiving unsafe care and treatment and support. In addition, we found the provider was in breach of regulation 10 (Dignity and respect). CQC have decided to take enforcement action against the provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded.
The provider did not always work well with people to understand what being safe meant to them and how to achieve that. People were not supported by skilled and effectively deployed care workers. People received their medicines as prescribed. However, care worker’s understanding of medicine to be given as needed (PRN) protocols was poor. The provider did not always work within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. People were not always treated with kindness and respect. Care workers had received training on equality, diversity, privacy, and dignity but it was not always effective. The provider did not always ensure people’s care and support met people’s preferences. The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and had not valued diversity in their workforce. The provider did not have an effective oversight of the service.
People were protected from the risk of infection. Risk assessments and risk management plans were completed for people which included guidance for care workers. The provider carried out satisfactory background checks for all care workers before they started working. Senior staff assessed people’s needs to ensure these could be met. Care workers gave people as much choice as possible.
This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.
People's experience of this service
We received mixed feedback from people. While some people expressed general satisfaction with their care for example: One relative told us, “The service is provided safely. They (Care worker) wash, turn in bed, check my loved one is not wet and put E45 cream on to keep dry skin moist. My loved one is bed bound and has no sores. There are no infections.” However, some people and their relatives told us they had not received safe care. For example, one relative said, “We had a health incident about a year ago. One of the carers wasn’t washing my (Loved one) properly and they had poo stuck to them for about 5 days causing sores. We asked that carer didn’t come back, and they haven’t.” Another relative commented, “My (Loved one) had a bad back about 7 or 8 weeks ago and they were taken to hospital where they said my (Loved one) was dehydrated. The carers in the week just bring a drink down and leave it there, they don’t encourage my (Loved one) at all.”
Some people have not received their care visits as planned. For example, one person told us, “I mentioned to the office about late visits and carers talking very loudly. But not much has changed.” One relative said, “They (Care workers) are allocated 45 minutes and half hour on 3 of the visits. They only stay 15 minutes and some of that time they are sitting in the kitchen on their own phones.”
Care workers had received training on equality, diversity, privacy, and dignity but it was not always effective. One relative told us, “Hard to understand them (Care worker), carers wear full face cover, and my loved one is intimidated by them, carers are a bit rough when they wash and so my loved one often refuses a wash, sometimes carers are late, and my (Loved one) gets agitated.” Another relative said, “About 8 months ago 2 carers came and brought prayer mats and said it was their time to pray, I told them they couldn’t do it, but they did.” There has been a big language barrier among care workers and people and their relatives. For example, one relative said, “The organisation should instruct carers to speak in English and to recruit people who had adequate competency in English language.”