We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dignity In Life on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Dignity In Life, you can give feedback on this service.
Dignity in Life is a service which provides support to older people and younger adults with a range of learning and physical disabilities, in their own homes. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection the service was supporting approximately 110 people of whom 102 were receiving personal care.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Systems were in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse. General and individual risk assessments were evident within people’s care files. Medicines systems were safe. Staff completed appropriate medicines training and regular refreshers to ensure their knowledge and skills remained current. The service were compliant with infection control and prevention procedures. Staff recruitment was safe, there was a thorough induction and on-going training. People told us staffing was consistent.
People’s needs were thoroughly assessed and care plans were regularly reviewed and updated. The service worked well with other professionals and agencies and supported people with health issues.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were treated with kindness and supported well. People were involved in care planning and review and felt their dignity was always respected. People’s choices and preferences were documented and taken into account when delivering care.
People were supported to access social activities if this was required. Complaints were addressed with appropriate actions and learning.
A positive, person-centred culture was promoted by the managers and staff at the service. People felt the manager was approachable and responsive. There was evidence of regular audits, satisfaction surveys and staff spot checks.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 25 July 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Dignity in Life offer a range of domiciliary care services, including cooking, cleaning and personal care.
There was a manager in place at the service who was going through the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People who used the service told us they felt safe. Staff files we looked at evidenced a robust recruitment procedure and staff we spoke with told us there were enough staff to cover the work. All staff had undertaken training in safeguarding and staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding issues and were confident to report any concerns.
Individual risk assessments were in place and these were updated on a regular basis. Accidents and incidents were recorded and followed up with actions such as contacting other professionals or making a referral to another agency.
There was an appropriate medicines policy in place and all staff had undertaken medicines training and their competency was assessed and regularly checked. There was a clear protocol for reporting any medicines errors.
There was a thorough induction programme in place, which included mandatory training. Refresher training and extra courses were on-going. Supervisions and appraisals had been undertaken regularly.
Care files included a range of personal and health information, documenting people’s support requirements. Nutritional information was included and where an issue was identified, for example when weight loss was being monitored, food and fluid charts were completed. Special diets, such as diabetic diet, were highlighted within the records.
The service was working within the legal requirements of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff were aware of the principles of the MCA and about how to contribute to making decisions in people’s best interests.
People who used the service told us they were happy with the support and with the staff. Staff we spoke with were able to tell us how ensured people’s dignity and privacy were respected.
We saw from the care records we looked at that equality and diversity was respected. The service tried to match up people who used the service with workers who had the appropriate skills and knowledge, for example relating to language and culture. People’s religious and spiritual beliefs were documented and respected in terms of care delivery and support.
There was evidence in the care files of the involvement of people who used the service and their families in care planning and reviews. There was a service user handbook given out to prospective users of the service and families.
We saw that care files were person-centred and included personal preferences, likes, dislikes and interests. This helped staff members deliver care in a person-centred and individual way. Some people received an outreach service to support them to activities and events.
The service had an appropriate complaints policy and procedure. Complaints were logged and followed up appropriately.
There was a manager in place at the service who was going through the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission.
People who used the service and staff members told us the management were supportive and approachable. Staff meetings took place on a regular basis and gave staff a forum to raise concerns and make suggestions.
A number of audits were undertaken regularly and there were regular visits to people who used the service to check on their welfare. Satisfaction surveys were given out for people to complete and their views and opinions were noted and acted on to help improve care delivery.