Dignity Direct Homecare Limited

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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfalls.

The service was in breach of legal regulation 10 in relation to Dignity and respect. The provider did not always treat people as individuals and did not always ensure people’s care and support met people’s preferences. People were not always treated with kindness and respect.

This service scored 35 (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 treat people with kindness and respect. Care workers had not always showed an understanding of equality and diversity. A person told us, “I have asked the carer to not be so loud. They speak in their own language.” A relative told us, “The carers don’t speak the same language as my (loved one).” Another relative commented, “The weekday carers are not at all caring, but the Friday and Saturday carers are lovely.” A third relative said, “They (Care workers) can just be loud and can’t speak English. So, they can’t communicate much with my (Loved one).” In the absence of suitable communication between care workers and people, we were not assured that people received respectful and compassionate care and support to meet their assessed needs.

Notwithstanding the above, one relative told us, “The carers are brilliant. They are very kind to all of us. It makes a difference.”

Care workers had received training on equality, diversity, privacy, and dignity but it was not always effective. A 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.”

Notwithstanding the above, some care workers told us, how they maintained people’s privacy and dignity by asking for their permission before entering their home, and by covering them to ensure people were comfortable when providing them with personal care. For example, a person said, “They (Care workers) always use a towel to cover the parts that are not being washed. Oh yes, they close the curtains when I get out of bed, even if no one is around. I’m respected in their care of me.”

The provider did not treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care and support met people’s preferences. For example, one relative told us during a planned visit, “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.” Another relative said, “Carers from abroad speaking their mother tongue with each other in the presence of people and their family. In one case, carers were having an argument with each other. This was considered disorientating and rude mannered.” We were not assured the provider had ensured people’s needs were met at all times, as well as advising care workers not to practice their faith in people’s homes during their scheduled home care visits, which were meant for delivering a regulated activity, or ensuring systems were in place to ensure staff could pray outside of care visits. In response to our feedback, the registered manager said they would look into it.

Notwithstanding the above, people’s care records included sections about their likes, dislikes and preferences.

The provider had not promoted people’s independence; people’s choice and control was sometimes limited. Details of people’s and their relatives feedback described under safe, caring, effective, and responsive key questions.

Notwithstanding the above, one person said, “I can choose a male or female carer. I only get women carers and I’m very much okay with that. I can choose if I want to get up. I need sleep in the morning, so the company sends me carers later in the morning. I pick my own clothes to wear and food to eat.” Another person told us, “When I’m up and about I can be left to my own devices and choose what I want to do. I choose my own meals and what I want to wear. No, I’ve not felt forced to do anything.” People were supported to maintain their independence. Care workers told us they encouraged people to complete some tasks for themselves, as much as they were able to.

The provider did not always listen to people’s needs and wishes. For example, details of people’s and their relatives experiences are presented under safe, caring, effective, responsive, and well-led domains section of this report. This meant care workers had not always responded to people’s needs and acted to minimise their discomfort.

Notwithstanding the above, care workers and office staff coordinated with external health and social care professionals if required.

The provider supported care workers with their wellbeing. Care workers told us they had access to support and advice from the office staff, and they were approachable at all times.