KEPA Care Solutions 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

We found one breach of the legal regulations in relation to person centred care. The principles of RSRCRC were not met; people's care plans were not person centred. Care plans were generic and did not contain sufficient information to inform staff how to support people in a positive individual way. There were no effective processes in place to ensure people had equity in their experiences and outcomes.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Although relatives told us people received person centred care and support, our assessment found that this was not the case. People were not involved in planning their care or creating their care plans. Care plans did not always highlight what people could do for themselves or prompt staff to encourage people's independence. For example, one care plan stated that the person needed support with meal planning, but it did not state what the person could do for themselves or any goals the person had around gaining independence in this area.

Although staff told us they delivered person centred care, records we reviewed evidenced this was not always demonstrated. For example, one incident form stated that a person was upset they were not taking part in an activity with their peers and were distressed. The incident report did not detail why the person was not supported to take part in the activity. Another incident stated that staff told a person during a period of distress that they would call the police, - this was not something that was advised within the person's care plan. Furthermore, this is not a positive way to support a person, could be threatening to the person and is not an appropriate way to support a person with a learning disability or an autistic person. Within some people's homes, their medicines were stored with other people’s within a staff room. This is not in line with supporting people to be independent.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People's care and treatment did not support equality or protect people's rights. Some people had not been involved in decision making about their care and support, and their home.

Although staff and the registered manager told us they promoted equality, we found this was not always the case. For example, safeguarding's were not always raised, because the registered manager assessed that people did not mean to harm one another, however there was no consideration on how this impacted all the people involved in incidents

Processes to ensure that people's care plans fully reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 were not effective. There was no evidence that people had been involved in creating and updating their care plans.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.