Dignified Homecare Limited

“At the time of this assessment, the service was providing personal care to 13 people.”

“We undertook an announced inspection visit to the service on the 21 April 2026. We have undertaken a comprehensive inspection which means we have reviewed all of the quality statements. As a result of this inspection, we have rated the service as good for safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led and good overall.”

“After the assessment, we spoke with people who used the service, their relatives, and staff to seek their views about the service.”

“We assessed the service against ‘right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found that the provider was working in line with principles of this guidance.”

“People were protected from the risk of abuse as the provider had systems in place to identify potential concerns and prevent abuse from occurring. Staff were provided with appropriate information and guidance on how to recognise and report any safeguarding concerns.”

“People’s equality characteristics were assessed and appropriately supported by the service. The provider operated effective recruitment procedures to ensure staff were suitable for their roles.”

“Staff demonstrated the knowledge and skills required to provide effective care and responded promptly to people’s needs. People received support with their medicines where required. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to infection prevention and control.”

“People received personalised care and support tailored to their individual needs and preferences. Staff promoted and encouraged independence wherever possible. People’s privacy, dignity and choices were respected, and they developed positive, caring relationships with staff.”

“People were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives. Staff worked in the least restrictive way possible and in people’s best interests.”

“Staffing levels were effectively planned and managed to promote consistency of care, ensuring people were supported by staff who were familiar to them. Staff reported feeling supported by the management team.”

“There were effective systems in place to monitor and oversee the running of the service, helping to ensure people received good care. The provider actively sought feedback from people using the service and their relatives to drive improvement. Regular audits and quality assurance checks were carried out to monitor performance and identify areas for development.”