Das Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

People and relatives felt they were in control of planning their care and received person-centred care from staff who knew them well. However, some care records lacked personalisation. People and relatives told us staff engaged well with external health and social care professionals to support their care. The provider suitably matched care staff with people. The provider ensured people had access to information in various formats. People’s views were listened to and acted on. People had access to care and could be supported to appointments. People’s equality and diversity needs were respected and met. Mixed feedback was received from people and relatives about the frequency of being formally asked to feedback on the quality of the care they received.

This service scored 71 (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 were happy with the support provided. A relative said, “They do everything and would do more.” A friend said, “Staff go above and beyond for [Name], especially their main carer. They will always follow [Name’s] lead.” People and relatives said they felt in control of planning their own care and support.

The provider explained they completed a thorough ‘needs assessment’ to ensure people’s care plans were person-centred. However, the processes we reviewed during our assessment were not always person centred. (See our caring section for more about person-centred care). A member of staff commented on how important it was to listen to your client, to understand what their likes and dislikes are, and in terms of care support what preferences they have. They said, “It’s often better to speak to people without the influence of others, to understand their own personal wishes, and not the wishes of others. However, if someone lacks capacity you should speak with their family and friends. Sometimes you will need to adapt your practice to meet the needs of the person you are supporting; to show how you can support them in the best possible way.”

People, relatives, and friends spoke positively about the service and said the provider and staff engaged well with other health and social care providers. A relative said, “The service does too much, there is a continuity of staff, so nothing to improve.” Another relative commented on how the service continued to work tirelessly collaborating closely with other professionals, including the occupational therapist, palliative and district nurses, and GP.

Staff and managers understood the need for joined up working to ensure the diversity of people’s health needs were met utilising local services. Staff were flexible in their approach and collaborated well with external professionals. Staff knew what people’s health care needs were. This had been discussed prior to the care commencing and staff were aware of people’s health conditions. A staff member was able to describe how they supported 1 individual with their personal care taking into consideration their diagnosed health condition.

A care professional provided feedback following joint sessions of care stating, “The carers had a good understanding of transfers using a return stand and were competent using the equipment. The carers were then required to use a full body hoist, again staff were confident.”

Records we reviewed showed the provider had worked with the local authority community assessment team, as well as the discharge team at the local hospital. However, the provider had a small amount of documentary evidence to support this quality statement.

A relative told us they are happy with the service, they said, “The carers speak the same language as [Name] so that really helps us. There are 3 regular carers, and 2 others that come when they are not around. [Name] knows the staff well.

The provider advised each person had a copy of the DAS Care’s ‘service user guide’ in their home, along with a paper copy of their care plan. The provider also informed us they were supporting a person whose native language was not English; the service was able to match the person with staff who could converse in the same language.

A care record we reviewed did not contain information relating to a person’s communication or information requirements. The provider confirmed they will often conduct a courtesy call to clients to request feedback on the quality of care they received and the opportunity to enquire whether any changes in care were required. However, this interaction had only been recorded on one occasion for 1 person. A service user guide was given to people at the start of their care journey which provided a wealth of information on what people should expect from the care team and management at the service. The provider ensured people had access to information in formats they could understand, such as large print, easy-read, audio and other languages, to meet the diverse needs of the people using the service.

People, relatives, and friends we spoke with all commented they felt listened to and were happy and able to raise any concerns. A relative said, “The staff spend a lot of time talking and listening to [Name] to help them understand why, when and where.”

Staff we spoke with described the importance of listening to people and being listened to, advising they followed by example. They told us the provider was a good listener, to both staff and people using the service. The provider told us they valued all people within the service and ensured all staff had a positive and happy approach towards people and an understanding of their individual needs.

The service had not received any complaints over the last 12 months. A complaints policy was in place, to be followed if people were unhappy with the care and treatment they received. People were listened to, and their needs considered during the initial needs assessment, which took place with the provider, prior to any care commencing.

People had access to a wide range of services. A friend said, “The relationship with the local surgery is good, the district nurse and GP are very good and will conduct home visits. A relative said, “[Name] was going to a coffee morning, staff picked [Name] up and took her out, the staff always put themselves out.”

Staff told us they felt everyone who used the service were able to access the care, support, and treatment they required. Most families would organise health appointments directly. As far as they aware through conversations with people and relatives there had been no barriers in accessing care locally.

The provider confirmed people and relatives are supported to access the care and treatment of their choice and could be supported by staff to attend appointments, if required. Staff also accompanied people to attend community activities.

Whilst people, relatives and friends gave us positive feedback on who to speak to should they have concerns to raise. We received mixed feedback about the providers ability to gather feedback on people’s experience of the care they received. The processes we reviewed during our assessment demonstrated a shortfall in the providers approach to gather robust feedback on the service they were providing. Despite 1 person telling us they were asked to provide feedback on the service annually. Several relatives commented they had not been asked to provide formal feedback on the quality of the service at all.

Whilst the provider told us they regularly telephoned and sent out questionnaires to people to gather feedback on the quality of care and support they provided. The processes we reviewed during our assessment were unsatisfactory. Staff said if people were unhappy with their care and support, they would encourage them to explain why, and where possible make the appropriate changes. Staff were not aware of any complaints that may have been made about the care provided.

We reviewed the results from the most recent formal feedback survey received from people and relatives in April 2024. We noted there were only 4 questions which would make it difficult to capture a true reflection on how people and relatives felt at the time. Actions were implemented following receipt of the feedback, however not all actions had been completed. The provider had not requested any feedback from external health or social care professionals on the quality of their service. Staff had not been asked to share their thoughts on how the service was performing. In addition, the provider failed to record the details of any courtesy calls made to people using the service, or feedback they received from relatives via the secure message App, regarding the standards of care.

People who were happy to do so were supported to identify their end of life wishes.

The provider informed us the service was not supporting anyone with end-of-life (EOL) care at the time of our assessment. Staff confirmed when people were approaching the end of their life the provider would speak to them about this to ensure staff were aware of any changes that had been made regarding the care and support being provided.

People’s care plans demonstrated a discussion had taken place regarding people’s end-of-life wishes, however, no-one had chosen to put an advance care plan in place. Some staff had completed palliative and EOL training, however, it was not clear whether all staff had completed this training. Partner feedback was positive, advising the service was involved with joint working for a community patient who was under the palliative care team. Several visits were completed by the provider and care staff.