Das 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

We identified 1 breach of the legal regulations in relation to governance. The provider had not operated an effective system to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided. This placed people at risk of harm. There was a significant lack of oversight, monitoring, and action. The quality assurance process at the service included some audits, but the provider was only completing a handful of audits which meant they had failed to identify the shortfalls we found during our assessment. There had not been enough improvement at the service since our last inspection. The provider had not set any organisational values to guide staff. Processes demonstrated the provider did not have the experience and capability to ensure all risks were managed. There was a culture of speaking up at the service, however, not all staff were aware of the whistle-blowing protocol. Although staff enjoyed working at the service, processes did not demonstrate staff’s personal well-being was discussed. The provider worked in partnership with external professionals to meet people’s care needs. Lessons were not always learned. However, all people, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management of the service and the support they received.

This service scored 54 (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 had not set any organisational values to guide staff on the core principles of the service. The provider told us, “I promote equality throughout the whole business with staff, people, and professionals. We give the opportunity for open discussion, provide equality and diversity training for staff to fully understand we all have rights.” Staff were able to describe how they would respect individuals cultural and religious beliefs; ensuring people received the right care and choices.

The provider was unable to provide any formal records to show the visions and values or future strategic goals of the service. Minutes of meetings did not record any discussions about the culture and values of the service and how these could be developed.

Whilst the staff spoke highly of the advice, guidance and support given by the provider. Processes demonstrated concerns with the leadership and oversight of the service. A staff member said, “If we get stuck [the registered manager] will help us, we work as a team, like a family, [the registered manager] is a very nice person.

Checks made by the provider did not identify the issues we found at this assessment. Processes did not always promote capable leadership.

Although there was a culture of speaking up. Not all staff were aware of the whistle-blowing policy and protocols. Management respected their care staff and were willing to provide support to them whenever needed. The provider confirmed there was a good working relationship between all staff employed. Staff confirmed they were able to make suggestions and felt the provider listened to them and took their views onboard.

The provider had a speaking up/whistle-blowing policy; however, this did not include contact details for the local safeguarding team. If staff concerns related to the registered manager, they could contact the nominated individual for support.

The provider confirmed the last few years had been difficult recruiting staff from diverse backgrounds. They commented when Covid came there were less people willing to work in care, due to the challenges. They confirmed the service was sponsoring 1 staff member under the skilled worker route, and this had been good for the company. A staff member said, “I really like working for DAS Care, the senior carers really helped me to understand the work and how to deal with clients during my training."

Staff and management meeting minutes did not show staff well-being, including equality and diversity has been actively promoted over a 3-month period. Group supervisions were taking place during 2024; however, this meant staff did not have the opportunity to confidentially discuss their performance or any concerns they may have. Staff had completed equality and diversity training.

The provider spoke positively about the improvements that had been made following their last inspection, including introducing an electronic care management system and a new training provider. The provider confirmed they were now able to access care log information ‘live’ to ensure the right care was being provided at the right time. However, there were no records to confirm these checks were taking place. The provider confirmed they had oversight of training but they were unable to provide documentary evidence of this; it was noted that some staff were enrolled on specialist training soon after we announced our assessment.

The provider had failed to ensure governance processes were effective. There was no evidence the service had implemented a quality framework that covered all areas of the service. There were a lack of audits and checks taking place. Care records were not always reflective of people’s current care needs, there were several pieces of missing information, and reviews of care were not taking place in line with the providers policy. An overall action plan had been developed covering several aspects of the service, but this was not continuously reviewed. There was no service improvement plan in place and the providers policies and procedures were either not complete or being followed. The provider had failed to follow national guidance in relation to medication management. Safety checks of people’s equipment were not satisfactory. The provider had not ensured safe recruitment practices were being followed. Accurate, complete, and up to date staff records were not always kept. Staff had not always received the training they needed to effectively meet the needs of people. The provider had not considered staff safety when lone working.

People and relatives told us staff worked well with other agencies when needed. A relative said, “They do so many things well. There was a leak in the shower, and they took photos to show me. I would not have noticed it. They let me know everything, I cannot ask for any more than what they do.”

Staff told us how they work alongside other healthcare professionals to ensure positive outcomes for all. A staff member said, “The main body of our job is to work with other professionals to get the best possible outcomes and meet people’s needs, it’s a key element.”

The provider had developed working partnerships with external healthcare professionals, including occupational therapists and GPs to ensure care was joined up, safe and effective.

The provider engaged with the local authority and attended dedicated provider and registered manager meetings for local care services, which were led by the local authority. People’s care records demonstrated the provider communicated with health and social care professionals.

Whilst the provider confirmed they discuss improvements with the care team, they had not made any recent improvements. During our assessment we became aware of a concern relating to network connectivity on staff’s mobile telephones, however no actions had been taken to rectify the issue. Staff told us the provider regularly telephoned people and relatives to check if any improvements to their care and support was required.

The provider had failed to effectively monitor the performance of the service and continually improve care. For example, safeguarding concerns, incidents, and accidents were either not recorded or records were incomplete. This meant accurate analysis to identify patterns and trends could not take place. Opportunities to prevent reoccurrence and learn lessons could have been missed. There was no service improvement plan in place.