Daily Comfort Healthcare Ltd

The provider was motivated to learn and improve the service for people. However, improvement was limited by a lack of effective risk and quality monitoring systems. This meant effective action had not been taken to address shortfalls found at our previous inspection and ongoing shortfalls we found in relation to people’s risk assessment and risk mitigation plans had not been identified prior to our inspection.
Although staff understood and managed some risks related to people’s care, they did not understand them all. This included the risks related to creams and lotions or pressure ulcers. Risks were not always assessed in accordance with universally recognised tools and documented in people’s care plans. This was also confirmed by professionals involved in people’s care.
The provider only made 1 staff recruitment file available for review as the registered manager was unable to provide the other files we requested. The lack of recruitment records meant they failed to demonstrate safe recruitment requirements.

Records did not show how people’s mental capacity had been assessed or if any best interest decisions were made on their behalf when required to ensure their rights and freedom were protected.
People and relatives knew how to complain and were confident the provider took it seriously and acted on it. People were protected and kept safe from abuse. Staff were happy to raise any safety concerns and felt they would be dealt with properly. There were sufficient numbers of staff in place.
People were consulted around how they wished their personal care to be carried out. However, people’s care had not been planned to take account of all their needs. Records did not show reviews of people’s care were taking place to ensure care plans were up to date.

People had a good level of consistency in care staff. Although people and relatives were generally positive about staff, they wanted to have rotas to tell them who was coming, especially if regular staff were not available. Although staff received training appropriate to their role, records of staff competency were not accurate. This included competency checks for medicines and manual handling. Team meetings were held online although we were unable to check their content or attendance.
The registered manager had worked with an external consultant to produce an action plan from the previous assessment with areas of improvement. However, they were not able to evidence where this had been completed. The provider was unable to show us any evidence of learning from incidents, complaints, or feedback from people or staff.

In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.