Daley Home Care

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 61 (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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Daley Home cares vision and culture was shared with staff in the staff handbook and clients in the guidance for clients. All staff worked in collaboration to ensure a quality service for the people. A staff member told us, “The management at Daley Home Care is supportive and approachable. I feel appreciated and welcome here. They always check on me and the client all the time. I feel that they really care about my well-being as much as that of the client.”

Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively.

Leaders were visible within the service and lead by example to their staff team, demonstrating inclusive behaviours. However, management did not have additional training to that of other staff, for example, they had not completed any specific management training in safeguarding. Management did not attend any of their local support groups designed to provide support which would be beneficial to the service in order to access support and development in their roles. However, we received positive feedback from stakeholders. A staff member told us, “It is a small, well managed company with a helpful and professional friendly team.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The provider had a whistleblowing policy in place. However, the provider had not always sought feedback from staff, for example, though a staff survey or an online anonymous questionnaire to enable their views to be expressed freely. Staff told us that they would speak up and felt that management would take appropriate action.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The provider had an equal opportunities policy in place. The training matrix in place showed 4 staff had in date equality, diversity and inclusion training. The other 7 staff had either not competed this training or their training was out of date. However, we received positive feedback from staff about working at Daley Home Care. A staff member told us “the management at Daley home care has a positive working environment”.

The provider did not have effective governance systems in place to identify and drive improvements at the service.

The provider did not have systems and processes in place to enable them to have oversight of safety and quality in the service. Staff informed management appropriately of incidents, however investigation and action taken by the provider was not always evidenced. There was no system to enable management to have oversight of safeguarding, accidents, incidents and complaints. This meant the service was not able to identify any trends or themes and drive learning within the service. Following our feedback, monthly audits for these were implemented during our assessment. However, we have not been able to assess the effectiveness and sustainability of this process.

Governance and performance management was not always reliable and effective. Processes did not identify concerns we found during the inspection. Safeguarding referrals had not always been submitted as required. Following our feedback safeguarding referrals were made to the local authority safeguarding team during the assessment. The safeguarding policies in place did not reflect the local arrangements for making safeguarding referrals or notifications to the Care Quality Commission. This meant that the provider did not provide clear direction on how to report safeguarding events and that there was a risk that safeguarding events were not reported to external agencies as required.

The provider did not ensure staff had the required training and robust competency checks were not in place. The training matrix in place showed training courses were overdue, however policies did not provide any guidance as to how often training was to be completed. The registered manager was not able to assure themselves staff training was completed in accordance with best practice guidance. The training matrix did not identify all of the training staff required. For example, learning disabilities and autism training and staff did not always have the required training for their roles. Competency assessments were taking place however required more detail. Following our feedback, medication and moving and handling competencies were improved during the inspection.

Regular staff meetings and staff appraisals did not take place. An appraisal template was provided during the assessment, following inspectors feedback. Although, staff supervision and spot checks were carried out, they were not held as regularly as policies stated. This put people at risk of harm.

The provider did not actively seek feedback from professionals and staff about their experience of. For example, surveys had not been sent out. This meant that the provider was not able to identify and make any required improvements.

The systems and processes did not enable to provider to identify and assess risks to the health, safety and/ or welfare of people using the service and staff. For example, care plan audits did not identify concerns we found during our inspection. Generic staff risk assessments and mitigation of risks, such as evidence of car insurance, were not in place. Following our feedback, these were put in place during the inspection.

The provider did not establish and operate systems to monitor and improve the safety and quality of care provision. For example, medicines were not always managed safely as the provider did not complete audits of medicine administration charts. This meant the provider did not identify or address concerns we found during our assessment, for example, medicines administration direction and gaps in recording of medicine administration.

All of these issues contributed to the provider not having clear oversight of the service provided.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

We received positive feedback from professionals about how Daley Home Care work in partnership with them. A professional told us “they provide a patient centred service and will ask for support as required”.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.

Regular staff meetings did not take place. The provider was not able to evidence collective problem solving and/or reflection of improvements and learning from incidents. However, staff were informed when people’s needs had changed and that care plans had been updated. The provider sent out weekly memos for staff which include updated details for clients and reminders about expected practice. We found no evidence the provider actively sought feedback from professionals, such as through surveys. Whilst we did identify shortfalls during this assessment, the provider was responsive to our findings and acted immediately on areas of improvement.