KEPA Care Solutions Limited

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

We identified a breach of the legal regulations in relation to dignity and respect. People's human rights were not upheld, because people had not been supported to make decisions in line with the Mental Capacity Act, and staff used physical intervention techniques without the relevant processes being followed to ensure this was done lawfully. People were not supported to be as independent as possible, to have goals and aspirations to work towards. Staff and the registered manager lacked key knowledge on how to support people with a learning disability and autistic people and did not follow the principles of RSRCRC.

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.

People had not always been treated with kindness and compassion. During incidents of distress, staff took people to their room to de-escalate situations without robust PBS guidance that demonstrated this was in the best interest of the person. Staff did not have robust PBS guidance to refer to, to inform them how best to support people. People were not treated as equals, as incidents of abuse were dismissed by the registered manager as one person 'not meaning it' without due regard for the other person involved.

Although staff told us they provided kind, compassionate care to people, we found this was not always the case. Staff did not always use positive, respectful language when referring to, or supporting people. Incident records for one person stated that following an incident they, 'apologised for their behaviour and promised to behave.' This language is not respectful or empowering for adults. This was not identified by the registered manager as inappropriate use of language.

Partners told us they had not been notified of incidents: they were not aware that people did not always receive kind or compassionate care, and were unaware that people did not have their dignity upheld. The provider had not ensured an open culture with other organisations and key partners and had withheld important information from partners about people’s lives at the service.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

People were not always supported to be as independent as possible or follow any goals or aspirations. Two people's care plans stated that they did not have access to education 'due to behavioural and cognitive challenges.' The care plan failed to address how staff could support the person to access education. Another person's care plan stated that they were not able to continue with their voluntary job due to not being able to carry out their duties. There was no information about what support staff gave the person to continue in their role, or any other roles staff had helped them identify. There was no evidence that staff had supported people to widen their social circle.

Staff did not support people through recognised models of care and treatment for people with a learning disability or autistic people. Staff and the registered manager were not aware of guidance for supporting people with a learning disability, or autistic people, including RSRCRC, or PBS. Although staff told us they supported people in a positive way, we found this was not always the case. Staff had not supported people to understand their rights and did not ensure that processes to support people's decision making were followed.

Processes to ensure people were supported to be as independent as possible and have as much choice and control of their lives were not always effective. For example, one person's care plan stated that they needed support with showering but did not detail what that support was, or what they were able to do for themselves. People's care plans did not detail goals and aspirations they were working towards. People, and those important to them, did not take part in making decisions and planning of their care and risk assessments. For example, people had not been consulted about who came into their home, or who they lived with. The registered manager did not always follow best practice standards which ensured people received, dignity, choice and independence in their tenancy.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.