Diamond Gate Care Services Limited

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.

This is the first inspection for this service. The rating for this key question is requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Care records had not been consistently reviewed or updated. We saw 1 person’s care plan contained a different person’s name and an incorrect address.

One person’s care record in relation to ‘behaviours of concern’ showed a referral had been made to mental health teams in January 2025 for support, however, this had not been followed up. We brought this to the attention of the registered manager, who confirmed that this was the case and would ensure it was followed up.

Care file audits carried out did not identify the issues we found at this assessment in relation to risks to people’s care and support needs.

There was a joined-up approach to care by the staff working at the service. Staff completed daily care notes with details of the care given. This was important if staff were attending calls where they needed to be aware of any concerns from the previous visit. We saw that there was a continuity in the care provided, as people had a regular staff team.

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.

One person using the service, had their support plan in an accessible format, using pictures that were suitable for them and was easy to understand. However, records showed the communication risk management plan for this person was not adequate. The risk assessment highlighted that the person had difficulty understanding verbal prompts and difficulty expressing thoughts and needs. Although the risk management plan documented how staff should verbally communicate with person, it did not show how using other accessible formats could be used to aid effective communication. For example, using pictures together with verbal prompts could be a way in which the person was able to understand staff effectively.

The provider had not received any complaints. There were complaints policy and procedures in place for receiving, handling and responding to comments and complaints should any be received. However, the complaints policy did not include details of the Local Government Social Care Ombudsman and CQC for people to contact should they not be satisfied with the way complaints were handled by the provider.

The provider ensured that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff understood people had a right to receive equal access to health and care support when needed, which included GPs and mental health team if needed.

The provider told us, they treated everyone with respect and kindness regardless of their race, religion, gender and sexual orientation. Staff told us they felt supported by their colleagues and management. One staff member said, “The manager is very supportive.”

Staff had received equality and diversity training and were able to describe how they respected people equally.

Although the provider was not supporting anyone with end-of-life care, there were no records to confirm that they had these discussions with people’s family. The registered manager told us that they would not be able to have this discussion with the person. However, they would raise it with the family and if they chose not to discuss it, they would record this in the person’s care records.