Dynasty Brighton Branch (Domiciliary Care)

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (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 and staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Although we received negative feedback from people and their loved ones regarding the reliability of calls, they told us that staff were caring in what they did and were doing their best under difficult circumstances. One person said, “I have [a carer] that I really like, they really know me well.” Another added, “They always treat me with respect and dignity, but it’s a shame they’re not more efficient.” Staff treated each other and colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. Whilst care plans were detailed in terms of people’s needs and wishes, these were not always adhered to in the care provided. For example, one person wished for their personal care to be given by female staff only. Due to staffing issues, this was not always possible and the person’s relative expressed it could be distressing for their loved one at times.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Care records detailed people’s needs and wishes, however these were not always being met due to staffing issues at the service. Staff did not always have the time to have meaningful interactions with people, however, they did tell us that they would always promote people’s independence as much as possible. One staff member said, “I never do to [person], I will always encourage them to do it themselves, as long as they are safe.” People told us that staff were kind and knew them, but that care often felt rushed because they had to get to the next person.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff attending people’s homes did respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of what to do in an emergency and were confident to contact the emergency services or other external professionals, if required. However, staff, people and their relatives, all told us that it was difficult to contact the office to raise concerns .

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. We received mixed feedback from staff regarding how well they were listened to, some staff told us it could be very difficult to get hold of the provider. Supervision was sporadic and staff tended to have ‘spot-checks’ instead which did not allow them a robust opportunity to discuss any concerns that they may have or explore any development opportunities. There had also been recent errors with staff payment and nearly all staff we spoke with commented on how this had a negative impact on their well-being.