You are here

Dailycare4U Telford Ltd Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 28 February 2020

About the service

Dailycare4U is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to 35 people at the time of the inspection.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

The registered office was located on the high street of a small market town.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

At our last inspection we found that Dailycare4U had made significant improvements. However these improvements had not been fully embedded. At this inspection we found the service had continued to improve and many of the systems and processes they had introduced, were now embedded.

We identified two areas at this inspection which required some additional improvement, and discussed these with the provider. We did not find that anyone was at risk of harm.

People and staff were generally complimentary about the training staff had received. However, we were unable to fully assess the level of training new staff received before being able to lone work. The provider maintained two different systems for recording training data, which when combined did not provide a clear picture of what training new staff had received.

Risks to people safety had been considered but records relating to the maintenance of equipment were minimal. The provider immediately made the necessary improvements. However, the governance systems in place had not highlighted the need for more robust oversight.

People were protected from abuse by staff who understood safeguarding procedures. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff and call times were actively monitored. People received their medicine as prescribed and were protected from the risk of infection.

The provider could evidence that lessons had been learnt when things went wrong and were aware of their duty of candour.

People’s care needs were assessed, and detailed care plans were developed. These provided staff with the information they needed to offer support, although, one person did tell us they had to request a review after their needs had changed. People were supported to maintain healthy lives and encouraged to eat and drink a balanced diet, as agreed in their care plan.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were treated well and involved in decisions about their care. Staff knew how to respect people’s privacy and dignity. Staff supported people’s independence by only completing the tasks people needed assistance with.

Care plans were personalised to each person’s needs and information was made accessible for people when required. Staff supported people to maintain relationships and supported social activities when requested.

People had access to a complaint’s procedure, but any concerns had been resolved before they became a formal complaint. The provider was not supporting anyone with end of life care at the time of inspection.

People were complimentary about the care received and staff felt well supported by the provider. People were engaged with the service and we saw evidence of continuous learning and improvement.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 14 February 2019).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection areas



Updated 28 February 2020

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 28 February 2020

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 28 February 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 28 February 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 28 February 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.