Archived: Dependable Care LLP

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 requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to providing people with person centred care.

This service scored 45 (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 and staff did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion.

For example, a staff member used stereotypes to describe the behaviour of the person they cared for and told us they were arrogant. As part of the training matrix shared with us during the inspection it showed that only 3 out of 10 staff members had completed Equality, Diversity and Human Rights training. Additionally, an audit described a person as ‘hostile and grumpy’ and there was no further evidence this had triggered an additional review into the way staff described people or to better support the person who was displaying emotional distress.

However, people we spoke with raised no concerns about how staff cared for them. One person told us “Yes, carers are kind and show compassion.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff had access to care records which identified people’s religion and ethnic origin, but no specific care plans were in place that described how any needs relating to people’s protected characteristics should be met.

Systems were in place to record peoples likes and dislikes, interests, hobbies and aspirations, however at the time of the inspection these systems were not followed and these specific areas in people’s care records were not completed. This meant staff did not have access to this information to ensure individual needs were respected and met.

People we spoke with were not aware if this information was recorded but did not raise any additional concerns.

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Care and support plans contained very little detail on how staff could support people to be as independent as possible. For example, care plans did not contain goals that were specific to them or how staff could support them to set short or long term goals. One care plan stated ‘no’ for ‘are there any goals and targets that client aims to achieve’. Another care plan had identified task-oriented goals which were not personal or meaningful to the person such as ‘[person] is to use the Zimmer frame when mobilising’. As the provider shared no daily care records with us we could not be assured people were being provided with care in line with their care plans. This meant we could not be assured people were supported or encouraged to access activities, go out to promote and support their independence, health and wellbeing.

Despite this people did not describe any issues around choice and control. One person told us “I take my own medication, carers just prompt me”.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Peoples care plans did not guide staff on how they should support people who may become distressed. Staff told us they relied on their own experiences, but this was not documented anywhere. No positive behaviour support plans were in place when the need for these was indicated and care plan audits were not completed regularly to identify where guidance could be added. Where care plan audits had been completed, opportunities to implement changes had not been taken.

However, Staff we spoke with told us that they would respond to people’s needs and support them if they identified signs of discomfort or distress. People and their families did not report there were any issues with their care.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

The provider had systems in place to support staff such as ‘check in with leaders’ during regular supervisions. However, no supervisions had taken place since April 2025. This meant staff did not have the opportunity to discuss their work and their personal circumstances with a manager.

Leaders had not implemented formal organisational wellbeing resources such as wellbeing apps, and financial advice, but told us staff could speak with them if they needed too.