Dignify Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We reviewed all 8 quality statements in this key question.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and relatives told us the registered manager was in touch with them to discuss any developments or changes needed to people’s care. People felt safe with the staff from this service.

Staff told us they regularly discussed incidents to review and reflect on what had happened and any actions needed. One member of staff told us, “Normally my line manager will have feedback for me, she will tell me what action she took and what actions are needed. She also puts it on the [staff communications] for all the team to know. It is also on the agenda for team meetings. If it is urgent, she will call an urgent meeting.” Another member of staff told us, “It is a learning culture. When there are any incidents, they are discussed. You don’t get to know who did it, just the lesson out of it.”

Staff filled out accident and incident forms which the registered manager reviewed. Records demonstrated management reviewed all incidents to identify actions to prevent reoccurrence. Information had been cascaded to staff in various ways such as virtual meetings and briefings.

People and relatives told us their experience of starting to use this service were positive as communication with management had been good. People had an individual profile which could go with them into hospital. This gave emergency healthcare staff information about people and their needs.

The registered manager told us they worked with healthcare professionals when people went into hospital. The registered manager told us, “I will go to the hospital and re-assess the person to see if things have changed. We make sure we can still meet people’s needs. In the past some of the clients may need aids, so we have facilitated this for them. We made sure this is in place for people on their return from hospital.”

Professionals we contacted did not share any concerns with us regarding this quality statement. One professional told us, “We have worked collaboratively to ensure customers move from our care to long term ongoing care provided by Dignify care. They [staff] have provided seamless transition for customers to move from our service to theirs without any problems.”

Management liaised with healthcare professionals to make sure people’s needs were met. The provider had systems to ensure where appropriate people’s health information was known by healthcare professionals and staff.

People and relatives we spoke with told us people were safe using this service as people felt safe with the staff in their homes.

Staff were knowledgeable about their role in keeping people safe. Staff understood the need to report all safeguarding concerns to their manager. Staff told us they were confident management would take action when needed.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities to report all safeguarding concerns to the local authority. There was a safeguarding and whistleblowing policy available to all staff and staff had safeguarding training as part of their induction.

People’s records demonstrated staff had identified risks to safety and put risk assessments in place to help keep people safe. People told us they felt staff had the skills needed to support them with any risks.

Staff were aware of risks to people’s safety and knew where to access guidance on how to manage risks. Staff also told us they would contact relevant health professionals to help them manage risks. For example, if a person was at risk of falls due to decreasing mobility, they would contact the occupational therapist for guidance on equipment to use.

Assessments of risks to people’s safety were carried out by the registered manager. Risk management plans were written to provide guidance for staff. However, we found some that had not been updated following changes of need. For example, 1 person had developed a pressure ulcer which was being managed by visiting community nurses. There were no details recorded of the pressure ulcer and what staff would do if there was an issue with the person’s dressings. The registered manager told us they would review all risk management plans and make sure changes were recorded.

People told us staff worked safely in their environments.

Staff told us management assessed people’s environments for any safety concerns. If any hazards were identified, guidance would be in place for them to follow.

Environment risk assessments were completed prior to packages of care starting. This included an assessment of where staff could park during visits to people’s homes. If people needed any equipment the registered manager contacted local occupational therapists (OT) for guidance. The OT would also provide training for the staff to make sure they were using any equipment safely.

People and relatives told us they felt the staff were well trained and worked to high standards. People had not experienced any shortages of staff since using the service.

Staff told us they had received an induction when they started work and training updates when needed. Staff told us they felt prepared and confident to start their work. New staff had opportunities to shadow more experienced colleagues which could be extended if staff needed more time. One member of staff said, “I did my shadowing for about 2 weeks and every month my line manager did supervision, talked to me and discussed challenges. I felt it prepared me for the job. She said I had time if I did not feel confident.”

The registered manager had completed the required pre-employment checks prior to staff starting work. This included a check with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). New staff received an induction which included completing the Care Certificate. Records demonstrated staff had regular supervision sessions.

People and relatives told us staff were following good infection prevention and control guidelines. People observed staff washed their hands regularly.

Staff told us they had been provided with guidance on infection prevention and control good practice. Staff told us they had access to personal protective equipment (PPE).

The provider had an infection prevention and control policy, which was regularly reviewed and updated to reflect current guidance. The registered manager carried out spot checks on staff to make sure they were putting their training into practice. This check also included asking people if staff were using PPE safely and making sure staff were washing their hands.

People told us they were happy with the support they had from staff to manage their medicines. Support provided included ordering and collecting medicines from the pharmacy and administering medicines.

Staff told us they felt competent administering and supporting people with their medicines. Staff told us they had received medicines training and had been assessed by the registered manager for competence.

We found there were not always ‘as required’ protocols in place to give staff guidance on how to administer this type of medicines. The registered manager told us staff had opportunities to discuss people’s medicines in meetings and supervisions so were knowledgeable about when to administer this type of medicines. The registered manager told us people’s medicines records were soon to be transferred to an electronic system. During this process ‘as required’ protocols would be put in place. People’s records did not always have specific details of what medicines support they needed. The registered manager took immediate action during the assessment to address this shortfall for the people we reviewed.