Das Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

People were happy with the care and support they received. They told us staff were caring and kind to them. The service treated people as individuals and made sure their needs and preferences were met, including their cultural and social care needs. Despite people and relatives positively feeding back about the care, the processes we reviewed demonstrated care records were not always updated. Care records were generic and at times lacked personalisation. The provider responded to people's immediate needs, and relatives provided feedback in relation to this. Lone working assessments completed by staff did not fully consider the health, safety, and welfare of staff.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were supported with kindness and dignity. People, relatives, and friends gave positive feedback about the care and support their loved ones received. A person said, “They treat [Name] with quite high respect. The staff are caring and kind to them.”

The provider told us they would discuss with staff the importance of ensuring people’s care was met according to their needs, delivered in a person-centred way, respecting people’s dignity and always taking people’s wishes into account. Staff explained how important it was to respect people’s privacy when supporting personal care, for example. To treat all people with the utmost respect, ensuring they were kind and caring in their approach.

A healthcare professional who worked with the service to provide palliative care and support said, “The staff had an empathetic approach and positive manner towards [Name] and their relatives.”

The staff treated people as individuals and made sure their care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. A person’s friend said, “They treat [Name] as a human being, there is kindness and a good atmosphere when they come to the home, regularly chatting about their daily events, providing emotional support rather than just physical care.

The provider told us they valued all people. They said, “I do not just see people as an individual, I see them like family. I make sure all care staff have a positive and happy approach in understanding people’s individual needs.” Staff told us the people they supported have unique needs and preferences. A staff member said, “People have different routines and like to do tasks in their own way. It is important to communicate with people to understand their wishes.”

People’s care plans showed how people were supported in ways that maintained their personal preferences, needs and choices, where this was known . People’s cultural and social care needs were also considered.

Whilst people and relatives gave us positive feedback about the care people received, the processes we reviewed during our assessment demonstrated people’s care records were not always updated as their care needs changed. People were given choices and supported to maintain their independence where possible. A relative said, “Yes [Name] is very independent, and the staff encourage this.” Another relative said, “I think the fact they found a way round [Name] changing his clothes without upsetting him is amazing.”

The provider told us people’s care was reviewed every 6 months; however, they were unable to provide any evidence of care reviews taking place. People’s care plans had not always been updated which meant there was a possibility the wrong care could be given. Staff encouraged and supported people to be independent with their mobility when it was safe to do so. Staff said it was important to communicate with people to ensure they had choice, for example choosing what to wear. Most of the people staff supported had good family and friend support networks, however, care staff would always feedback any concerns, if necessary.

Care records were standardised as part of the care planning system. There were some elements of personalisation, however people’s dislikes were not identified. Daily notes were not person-centred, they were generic, and task focused. We found some medicine records were also not person-centred.

People told us they felt well cared for. A relative said, “The service stepped up and took control when I was away. They took time to speak to my son in my absence. The provider kept me informed and telephoned me regularly. They knew [Name] needed extra care at night and they arranged this care until I returned.”

Staff told us it is especially important to regularly communicate and listen to people. This enables you to truly understand people’s needs, views, and wishes. A staff member said if someone was distressed, “I will try my best to make people happy, prepare their favourite meal or suggest an activity we can do together.”

Whilst the provider was available 24 hours a day to support their staff team, the processes we reviewed identified the provider had not conducted a thorough lone worker risk assessment to identify the risks associated with the staff’s roles. However, staff told us they felt supported by the provider and their colleagues. They felt valued as individuals and able to approach the provider with any concerns. A staff member said, “The registered manager is doing a brilliant job, they have a protocol that we can ring them anytime.” The provider confirmed they always request feedback from staff during supervisions or by telephoning them.

The provider had arranged for staff to complete a lone working risk assessment, where relevant. However, this assessment did not solely focus on staff individually and did not take into consideration all possible workplace conditions. This meant the health, safety and welfare of staff was at risk.