Direct Link Care Ltd - Oxfordshire

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

We received mixed feedback from people about how personalised the support they received was. People who were positive about their experience told us, “Anything you ask the carers to do, they will do” and “The carers are very polite and friendly and listen to what I have to say. However, people who were less satisfied told us, “Sometimes the carers forget what duties they need to do” and “Some carers don’t communicate much with my relative.” We have provided this feedback to the provider to take action.
 

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice. However, we received mixed feedback from people about how many different staff they had support from. One person told us, “I’d rather get more familiar faces with better continuity”, I don’t know any of their names”. Other people told us, “There are 8 different faces [staff] in a week”, I may be better to have about 4 with greater familiarity” and “We get different carers on a daily basis.” We looked at people’s care visits. One person had been visited by 29 different staff within a 12-week period. We have asked the provider to look into this.

However, other people told us they were happy with the staff who visit them. Comments included, “The reliability is very good and they keep to time” and “I have a good continuity of people”.

The provider worked with local authorities to ensure funding was available for any changes needed in care provision.
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Since 2016 onwards all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers.

We found the provider supplied appropriate, up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People received information in a timely way that met best practice standards, legal requirements and was tailored to individual need.

People who used the service, their family, friends, and carers were provided with information that was accessible, safe, secure and supported people’s rights and choices.

People’s individual needs to have information in an accessible way were identified, recorded, highlighted and shared. People’s needs were met and reviewed to support staff to ensure people’s care and treatment was provided in line with the Accessible Information Standard.

Staff were supported to understand people’s communication needs and had additional training to support them meet those needs.
 

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. However, people and their relatives told us their experience of service seeking their feedback could be improved.

Comments from people included “We have a care plan and it’s kept up to date with my input” ,“We have a care plan in a booklet and it’s up to date… I can have full input into any reviews.” To support these comments the provider told us, "Since May 2025, service user engagement has been maintained through structured surveys, ongoing care reviews, follow up telephone calls, informal feedback during visits, and review of compliments and concerns." We could see this feedback had been taken seriously and action plans had been created to ensure improvements were monitored.

However, other people told us they did not always feel listened to. Comments included, “I have a care plan, but I haven’t seen it in a while and not sure what’s contained in it” and “We have a care plan in place, but I haven’t personally been involved in updating the plan”. Another person told us “We have a problem with the care plan. We need a meeting, because we don’t know what kind of care plan was set up by this agency and whether it meets the needs.” We have provided this feedback to the provider to take action.
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People and staff were able to demonstrate the service was responsive to people’s access needs, including cultural, gender-based, physical and health r elated requirements.

People did not experience discrimination or inequality in how their care was delivered and the support they received. There were policies to promote people’s equality and diversity needs. Staff received training on equality, diversity and inclusion. Care plans contained relevant information for staff. One member of staff told us " We have detailed information on personal, cultural, and religious needs from prayer times and dietary restrictions like vegan, to preferred pronouns and lifelong routines. We tailor care to meet these for example, ensuring a person can have their hair done in a specific way. Protected characteristics are considered in every assessment and care plan to ensure equity and personalised support.”

Staff provided positive feedback about how they were supported. Comments from staff included, “The service upholds my human rights by providing a safe working environment, treating staff with respect, and following policies that protect welfare and equality. I feel I can work without fear of discrimination or unfair treatment”, “I feel treated fairly, given safe working conditions and my privacy respected” and “Leaders and colleagues treat me with respect, listen to my concerns, and value my contributions during meetings and supervisions.”
 

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Systems were in place for people and their relatives to complain, however, not all people we spoke with had knowledge of how to complain or had received a complaints procedure. When we asked a person if they knew how to complain they told us, “I’m not sure I’ve been given that information.” We have provided feedback to the provider on this. Where people had told us they had concerns they felt those concerns had not always been listened to. People told us, “We sometimes find minor issues have not always been dealt with promptly or timely and there are sometimes communication issues depending on who has answered the phone”, “It seems if I mention something to staff, they can’t handle it, they never refer it up” and “No one has come back to me… I feel no one has dealt with it.”

However, people who had knowledge of the complaints process had confidence in the service to respond, they told us, “I have access to a complaints policy, but I’ve never needed to use it because there is nothing really negative about the company overall”, “Based on previous experience, complaints are handled appropriately”, “Yes absolutely [complaints dealt with] and always a quick response” and “I feel complaints would be taken seriously.”
 

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.