Daisychain Homecare Services

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (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 always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always identify where assessments of people’s care lacked sufficient guidance for staff. Initial assessments of people’s needs were carried out prior to them using the service, however the level of support people required was not always clearly stated in their care plans. For example, care plans did not provide enough detail on the equipment people used to aid their mobility, there was no information on how staff should ensure equipment was safe to use or the techniques staff should use to safely meet people’s specific needs.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We found that not all information provided by external agencies was included in people’s care plans for staff to follow. This posed a risk that people would not receive care in a way that met their assessed needs. We received positive feedback from external stakeholders, one stakeholder told us, “I find the staff very approachable and friendly, they are good with the patients.” And another stakeholder told us, “[Staff] are second to none with patients, they are seamless at arranging care and are quick to identify any issues.”

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. People’s risks were not thoroughly assessed, and their care plans did not provide staff with sufficient guidance to ensure people’s outcomes were monitored or met. For example, where people had been identified as having a history of falls, their care plans did not include clear instructions for staff on how to reduce this risk. People’s care plans and risk assessments had not been thoroughly reviewed to ensure they accurately reflected the person’s current needs. This placed people at risk of avoidable harm.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and understood how to apply this into their practice. However, the provider had not thoroughly assessed people's capacity to make decisions. Mental capacity assessments had not been completed so it was unclear if people could consent to the care provided or if the decision to provide care was in their best interests. This placed people at risk of receiving care that was not in line with their wishes.