Kemsing Road Respite Service

Updated 21 March 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service and provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection team consisted of one inspector. Before we visited the home we checked the information we held about the service and the service provider, including notifications and incidents affecting the safety and well-being of people. The provider also completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

There were four people using the service. All the people had learning disabilities and could not always communicate with us and tell us what they thought about the service. Because of this, we spent time at the home observing the experience of the people and their care, how the staff interacted with people and how they supported people.

We spoke with three relatives. We also spoke with the registered manager, three care workers and one healthcare professional. We reviewed three people’s care plans, four staff files, training records and records relating to the management of the service such as audits, policies and procedures.

Updated 21 March 2018

We undertook an unannounced inspection on 31 January 2018 of Kemsing Road Respite Service. Kemsing Road Respite Service is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing, or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service accommodates up to four people with complex communication needs, profound learning and physical disabilities for respite care.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission [CQC] to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons.’ Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection on 25 January 2016, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People's health and social care needs had been appropriately assessed. Care plans were person-centred, and specific to each person and their needs. Care preferences were documented and staff we spoke with were aware of people's likes and dislikes. Care plans were regularly reviewed and were updated when people's needs changed.

Systems and processes were in place to help protect people from the risk of harm. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to recognise and report any concerns or allegations of abuse. Risks to people were identified and managed so that people were safe.

Systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines safely. However records did not clearly reflect when people’s stay had ended resulting in gaps in medicines records. The registered manager promptly addressed this issue during the inspection so there were no unexplained gaps.

Staff had been carefully recruited and provided with induction and training to enable them to support people effectively. They had the necessary support, supervision and appraisals from the management team.

Staff we spoke with had an understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Mental capacity assessments had been conducted and best interests decisions made where people lacked capacity to make specific decisions for themselves, in line with the MCA.

People were supported with their nutritional and hydration needs. Staff were aware of people’s dietary requirements and the support they needed with their food and drink.

Procedures were in place for receiving, handling and responding to comments and complaints. We saw evidence that complaints had been dealt with appropriately and in a timely manner.

Staff told us that they received up to date information about the service and had an opportunity to share good practice and any concerns they had at team meetings. Staff spoke positively about working for the service.

The quality of the service was regularly monitored and regular audits and checks had been carried out by management. There were systems in place to make necessary improvements when needed.