Dignified Homecare Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks about people’s safety were assessed to ensure they were supported to remain as safe as possible. The provider ensured there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff working for the service. They had a thorough recruitment and selection process for new staff.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. People and relatives told us they had no concerns on the way staff provided care and support. A person told us, “I feel safe with the carer when they visit.” A relative said, "I have no concerns with the carers, they are all wonderful and do a brilliant job."

Staff were clear about their responsibilities to report concerns and were able to describe the action they would take if they witnessed or suspected any abusive or neglectful practice. A member of staff told us, “I will inform my manager if I have any concerns.” Staff had received safeguarding training and they were aware on how to escalate any concerns that they might have to external agencies. The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities on how to protect people from abuse and explained the actions they would where there was an allegation of abuse.

The provider had safeguarding policies and procedures in place. These advised staff on what to do if they had concerns about the welfare of any of the people, they were providing care and support to. The provider also had a whistleblowing policy in place, and this gave guidance to staff on how they could raise concerns about any unsafe practice. A whistle blower is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organisation. Records showed and staff confirmed they had undertaken training to support their knowledge and understanding of how to keep people safe. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty had the appropriate legal authority and were being met. The registered manager and staff had a good understanding of the principles of the MCA. There were policies and procedures for them to follow. People were able to make day to day decisions about their lives. For example, they were able to chose the time they wanted the staff to visit them. Staff sought the permission of people who used the service before they carried out any tasks. The management team and staff monitored people's mental capacity to ensure that they were able to make appropriate decisions and where needed, supported them to do so. Staff had received training on applying the MCA.

Staff knew about people’s health needs and ensured they were safe when carrying out any tasks. They told us the risk assessments gave them guidance on what action they should take to reduce risks and to keep people safe. The registered manager mentioned they encouraged staff to report any new risks so that appropriate action could be taken to ensure the safety of people who used the service and we noted they had done so. The registered manager told us they were in regular contact with people and their relatives and this helped to identify any risk or changes in the needs of people using the service.

Potential risks about people’s safety were assessed to ensure they were supported to remain as safe as possible. Risk assessments were very detailed and gave staff clear guidance on how to support people safely. Risk assessments were reviewed regularly to ensure they were still relevant. This helped to ensure people were receiving safe care and support. Staff knew about people’s health needs and ensured they were safe when carrying out any task. The provider also had an environmental risk assessment in place which identified potential risks and how to minimise them.

People and their relatives were involved in the delivery of care and support being offered. This included the management of potential risks. A relative told us, "I have been included in the care of my family member."

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People were very complimentary of the staff who cared for them. A person told us, “The carers are very good, they always arrive on time.” Another person said, “I never had a missed call.” A relative mentioned that the staff knew what they were doing and were trained well.

People were supported by staff who had the knowledge and skills required to meet their needs. The provider had a training programme for all staff to complete. Records showed that staff had received training in a number of key areas relevant to their roles. Staff received appropriate supervision and support which helped to ensure they were able to provide effective care. During those meeting, a range of issues were discussed, including staff training needs and people’s care needs. Pre-employment checks had been carried out, which ensured that staff were suitable to support people safely. There was an induction period for new staff. Staff would shadow an experienced member of staff until they were competent to work on their own. The induction covered their familiarisation with the service, the people who used it and the policies and procedures of the provider. Staff who had worked for the service for more than 12 months would also receive an annual appraisal accordingly as this was not up to date. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and to provide personalised care and support. People were supported by the same staff members unless the staff were on leave or not well. This helped with consistency and continuity of care as staff were aware of the needs of people they were caring for. There was a system to monitor when staff arrived and left for their visits. This helped to ensure people received their visits on time.

Staff told us there was enough time allocated to them to be able to meet people’s needs. They also mentioned they had regular meetings with the registered manager to discuss their role and development needs. A staff member said, “I have regular supervisions with my line manager, the last one was in November.” Staff felt the training they received was good and helped them to meet people’s needs. A staff member told us, “We do a lot of training and this help us to look after the clients.”

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.