DayByDay Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

This service scored 46 (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 have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. Staff told us they did not feel involved, valued or listened to by management. Staff morale was poor which had created a disconnect between staff and management. Staff told us, “Management needs to stop being defensive when approached with carer work conditions and to be more responsive when safeguarding issues are raised concerning people or carers.” Management told us they had identified this cultural issue and took steps to involve staff in staff meetings. The provider had also recently introduced focus groups in an attempt to involve staff more and improve the culture within the service. However, staff feedback about these meetings was negative, including, “Meetings are held once in a while. These meetings lack relevance as they seem to be done only for the sake of evidence to the authorities but not addressing crucial matters. The meetings are held without an agenda, no minutes of previous meetings and no other business is discussed.” The provider told us they had employed an HR consultant to assist with communication and workplace culture. We saw evidence that brief agendas were circulated prior to some staff meetings, but not all.

Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively.

Management lacked understanding around some areas such as capacity and consent, the management of behaviours which may be challenging to others, promotion of positive culture and morale, and regulatory requirements around the submission of notifications to CQC.

The registered manager did not have any supervisions or appraisals themselves, although they were a member of a local external care group which met weekly to share knowledge, experiences and promote good practice. The registered manager was passionate about the care industry and was motivated to improve and provide good and effective care to people.

Staff did not feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard. Staff told us, “Meetings are for the manager to tell us what they want us to do however they are not interested in hearing our concerns or trying to come to a resolution or way forward on challenges that employees are facing on the job. Communication only comes from the management to the employee and never from the employee to the manager. They seem not to be interested in the employee's side of things.” The provider had measures in place to gather feedback from people and staff. The provider used ‘client feedback forms’ and ‘employee satisfaction surveys’ to gather views. The results were analysed and actions identified in response. However, it was not always clear who was responsible for the actions, whether the actions had been completed and what the outcome was.

The provider did not always work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. Most staff reported that their wellbeing was not a priority, they did not feel supported, and morale was low. Staff told us, “I do not feel safe at work. If we raise concerns, they are ignored or they [management] become defensive. We are forced to do as they wish. We fear victimisation if we pursue the concerns.” Most staff told us there was a lack of flexibility in terms of working hours and days off. Issues staff raised in annual supervisions were not always addressed and the same workforce wellbeing issues were raised year after year. The provider told us they hoped to employ more workers which would improve working conditions. The provider also told us about initiatives they were considering to improve staff morale.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes. Most staff told us the service was not always well-led. Staff told us, “The staff team is not happy,” and “Management are always in a defensive mood if you raise a concern, and communication is not good.”

People using the service and their relatives gave mixed feedback about the management of the service. One person told us, “The company is well managed and improving constantly. I can contact the manager if I need to, and they do listen to my concerns and respond appropriately. There is good communication, and I have no issues or complaints.” However, another person told us, “The communication with this company is terrible. I have no respect for the manager who doesn’t listen to my concerns.”

Management and staff reported a high staff turnover which had impacted consistency and continuity of care and had the potential to impact the sustainability of the business. The provider told us there were plans in place to stabilise the workforce.

The provider mostly understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership with other services. The service had links with other professionals, and positive feedback was received about staff engagement. Professionals told us, “If there is ever an issue, they always let me know,” and “I have had no issues with making contact with DayByDay Care when needed, [the registered manager] always responds promptly to any call or email I have with her.”

The provider did not always effectively focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage collaborative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. Quality assurance systems were in place and had identified issues. However, issues, concerns and complaints were not always robustly investigated to support effective learning. Staff told us their suggestions were not always acted upon. The service had received significant support and input from professionals and, whilst some improvements had been made, issues continued to be present in multiple areas. The quality of the service had declined following the previous inspection.