Dignity Direct Homecare Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation 9 in relation to person centred care. The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

At our last assessment in September 2024 the provider had failed to ensure people’s care plans were person centred. This was a breach of Regulation 9. At this assessment, we found the provider had not made enough improvements and remained in breach of Regulation 9.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care. People’s needs were not met at all times. We received mixed feedback from people. One person told us, “I wasn’t involved in the care plan at all; a lady came and told me what they would do and that was that.” One relative said, “When my (Loved one) say ‘I’m okay don’t worry about me’ and they (Care workers) don’t. So there is dinner in the fridge to be heated, they don’t do it, there is water in the fridge, and they don’t do it. In that really hot weather in June 2025 they didn’t even go to the fridge to get the water for my (Loved one). I told one of the carers and the carer said, ‘oh your (Loved one) doesn’t drink it anyway’. That’s dangerous. I told office staff about it, and they are a bit better now.” They further said, “At lunchtime carer will go in and my (Loved one) says I’m okay and they leave straightaway, don’t encourage my (Loved one) or spend any time, they just go.”

Another relative commented, “We have a care plan in a folder. Staff ring up and call around to meet with family members to discuss ongoing care needs. They (Staff) ask if we are happy with the care and if anything else needs sorting out. That happens about once every 6 months.”

In the electronic call monitoring (ECM) data for 7651calls for60people from 24 June 2025 to 23 July 2025, we identified failings with regards to care workers ticking completed for all tasks in the ECM record and left most of the observations/narrative section of the records section blank. We were not assured if all planned care tasks were carried out in line with people’s agreed care plans, therefore, people were at risk of not receiving the care they required.

Notwithstanding the above, care plans contained information about people’s personal life and social history, their health and social care needs, allergies, family and friends, and included guidelines on how to support them. Care plans included the level of support people needed from care workers and what they could manage to do for themselves. Care plans were reviewed regularly and updated to reflect people's current care needs and situations.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. We were not assured care workers were always provided with information about people’s diverse needs and how these were met. We received feedback from people using the service and relatives regarding care workers not communicating with people in their own language. For example, a relative told us, “The company should tell them (Care workers) to speak in English and to make sure that they can speak English.” This was a risk that care workers may not fully understand what people were telling them about their care needs and preferences to ensure people received consistent care.

One person was risk assessed for nonverbal communication and a mitigation plan was in place to meet their communication needs. However, the provider had not ensured care workers had received training in nonverbal communication, so, we were not assured how effective was their communication with people.

Notwithstanding the above, relatives supported people to access the community for healthcare appointments. However, the office staff and care workers worked with external health and social care professionals and shared relevant information with them to ensure people’s needs were met.

The provider did not always supply appropriate and up-to-date information people needed about the service and their care. People and their relatives comments included: “No rota and no access to App.” “I would like to know beforehand if a new carer is coming.”

Care workers did not use the most suitable means of communication to respect service user’s right to engage. One person told us, “They (Care workers) can speak in their own language, and I don’t understand. They have spats with each other occasionally.” One relative said, “They (Care workers) are okay. But they can just be loud and can’t speak English. So, they can’t communicate much with my (loved one).” A third relative said, “The morning carer is the only one with good English.”.

Notwithstanding the above, one person’s care plan was in an accessible format to meet their communication needs.

The provider enabled people, and their relatives to share feedback about their care. There were systems in place to ensure the provider sought the views of people using the service through regular reviews of their care, spot checks, and feedback surveys that were conducted. In the provider’s analysis of people’s feedback was positive.

The provider had a complaints procedure. Complaints were handled in line with the service provider’s current complaint policy. When people or their relatives were dissatisfied with the service, complaints were documented, the logs made it easy to track both the investigation process and outcome were logged and remedial action taken. Apology letters were sent with actions taken. This process supported people to feel heard and supported.

However, during the assessment we spoke with 21 people and their relatives, and we received mixed feedback from them regarding if they felt their complaints were listened to and addressed. A relative told us, “We did have one issue when my loved one didn’t like a carer, and the agency just changed the carer.” Another relative said, “I mentioned to the office about late visits and carers talking very loudly. But not much has changed.”

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care and support they needed when they needed it. The registered manager told us they would always support people with any needs they had with regards to their disability, race, religion, sexual orientation, or preferred gender. However, we found some people were not happy with call timings and have experienced poor care.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. For example, people and their relatives experienced communication difficulties as some care workers were not able to communicate in good English language, and the provider had not promoted workforce diversity to respect people’s cultural needs.

Notwithstanding the above, care workers had training in equality and diversity. People’s care plans included information about their individual characteristics, culture, religion, sexuality, lifestyle and beliefs.

The provider had an end-of-life care policy in place. Staff were aware about how to support people who required with end-of-life care. They said they would liaise with the appropriate health care professionals to provide people with end-of-life care and support, when it was required.