We carried out a review of the data available to us about Kent Home Care Limited on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Kent Home Care Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
Kent Home Care Ltd is a domiciliary care agency that provides live in care within people’s own homes for older adults with a variety of needs, including people living with dementia, mental health conditions or a physical disability. At the time of our inspection the agency was supporting 25 people.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People and relatives told us they felt safe with care staff and staff were able to demonstrate a good awareness of each person's safety and how to minimise identified risks.
People were supported by live in care staff that were caring. People received care and support based on their individual needs and preferences. Staff were knowledgeable about people, their needs and preferences and used this to develop a good relationship with the people they visited.
People were supported by live in care staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff understood their roles, felt confident and well supported.
People's health was supported as staff worked with other health/social care providers when needed to support people’s needs.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff understood they should support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People's care plans reflected people’s needs and preferences and the staff were able to explain recent changes to people’s care. People told us they were involved in assessments of their care needs and care plans were reviewed regularly and when people's needs changed.
People knew how to complain and that any concerns would be listened and responded to by the provider. The registered manager saw complaints as useful feedback from which to develop and improve the service.
People, relatives, staff and professionals gave us an overall positive picture about the quality of care people received, and said they were able to share their views comfortably with staff or the office.
People and their relatives told us the registered manager and staff were approachable, organised, listened and responded to them and acted on feedback when they shared this with them.
Quality monitoring systems included audits, spot checks on staff practice and regular checks on people’s satisfaction with the service they received, by surveys, phone calls or visits from the service’s management. Whilst the service was meeting people’s expectations the registered manager was keen to consider and was actively looking for ways to improve.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was ‘good’ (published 14 December 2016).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner
Kent Home Care Limited provides live-in care staff for people in Kent and the London Borough of Bromley. Staff provide personal care and support to older people, including people living with dementia and people with a physical disability in their own homes. At the time of the inspection the service was providing live-in personal care support for thirty people.
The service has a registered manager who was available and supported us during the inspection. 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.
The service was last inspected in August 2015, when it was rated as Requires Improvement. At this time we found three breaches of Regulation and issued requirement actions. Regulation 12, the provider failed to ensure the safe administration of medicines. Regulation 18, the provider failed to ensure staff had the necessary training and supervision for their role. Regulation 17, the provider had failure to ensure there were effective systems for the governance of the service. The provider sent us an action plan telling us how they would address the breaches and that this would be completed by March 2016. We found this action had been effective in addressing the shortfalls as no breaches of Regulation were found at our inspection on 12 and 13 October 2016.
People felt reassured and safe in their own homes whilst being supported by staff. Staff had received training in how to safeguard people and a system was in place to regularly check they had the knowledge and skills to report any concerns so that people could be kept safe.
Comprehensive checks were carried out on all potential staff at the service, to ensure that they were suitable for their role. People had their needs met by regular staff that were available in sufficient numbers.
Assessments of potential risks had been undertaken in relation to the environment that people lived and worked in and in relation to people’s personal care needs. This included potential risks involved in moving and handling people, supporting people with their personal care needs and with eating and drinking. Guidance was in place for staff to follow to make sure that any risks were minimised.
A medicines policy was in place to guide staff. Staff had received training in the administration and storage of medicines and a system was in place to regularly check they had the knowledge and competence to manage people’s medicines safely.
New staff received an induction which ensured that they had the skills they required, before they started to support people in their own homes. Staff undertook e-learning training in essential areas and face to face practical training in how to move and handle people safely. People said that staff had the skills and knowledge they needed to support them.
Staff had undertaken training in The Mental Capacity Act (MCA). The MCA provides the legal framework to assess people’s capacity to make certain decisions, at a certain time. When people are assessed as not having the capacity to make a decision, a best interest decision is made involving people who know the person well and other professionals, where relevant.
People’s health care and nutrition needs had been comprehensively assessed and clear guidance was in place for staff to follow, to ensure that their specific health care needs were met. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s health care needs and liaised with health professionals and family members when appropriate.
People were supported by a member of staff who had been matched as compatible due to shared interests or hobbies. Staff knew people extremely well as they spent their day together and so could quickly respond to any changes in their well-being. People said staff were kind and caring, enabled them to make their own choices and decisions. Staff demonstrated they treated people with the upmost dignity.
People’s needs were assessed before they were provided with a service and people and their relatives were fully involved in this process. These assessments were developed in to a personalised plan of care. The care plans gave detailed guidance to staff about how to care for each person’s individual needs and routines. Most people had a main live-in member of staff and staff were knowledgeable about people’s preferences and preferred routines.
People were informed of their right to raise any concerns about the service and when people had raised issues, the service had resolved them and used them as lessons of learning to improve the service.
There were effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. People said that they would recommend the service and that their views were listened to. Staff understood the aims of the service and put them into practice by providing personalised care. Staff had confidence in the management of the service which they said was supportive.
The inspection took place on 21 August and was announced. We gave ‘48 hours’ notice of the inspection, as this is our methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies. We visited people who used the service on the 26 August.
This is our first inspection of the service since it was registered with us in August 2014.
Kent Home Care Limited provides live-in care staff for people in the Kent area. Staff provide personal care and support to older people in their own homes. At the time of the inspection the service provided live-in personal care support for eleven people.
The service has a registered manager who was available and supported us during the inspection. 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.
The agency had a comprehensive medicine policy to guide staff. Staff had received e-learning training in medicines management, but not all staff had had their practical skills and competency in giving medicines checked to ensure they were doing so safely and in line with the agency policy. There was a higher risk of medication errors occurring because medication administrative records had been completed by one person from the agency and had not been checked by another person to ensure their accuracy.
New staff did not receive a comprehensive induction which ensured that they had the skills they required, before they started to support people in their own homes. Staff undertook e-learning training in essential areas and face to face practical training in how to move and handle people safely. Relatives said that staff had the skills and knowledge they needed to support their relative. However, not all staff had received training in food handling or The Mental Capacity Act 2005. The MCA 2005 provides the legal framework to assess people’s capacity to make certain decisions, at a certain time.
There were not effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. The agency had not identified shortfalls in staff induction and training. Although the medication policy had been reviewed, this review had not been effective as it contained legislation that was applicable 15 years ago. The agency had not followed its only policy on supervision, appraisal and staff meetings as these were not all taking place.
People felt safe in their own homes whilst being supported by staff and when being moved by a hoist or other equipment. Staff had received training in how to safeguard people and knew how to report any concerns so that people could be kept safe.
Comprehensive checks were carried out on all potential staff at the agency, to ensure that they were suitable for their role. This included obtaining personal and employment references and a criminal vetting and barring check.
Assessments of potential risks had been undertaken in relation to the environment that people lived and worked in and in relation to people’s personal care needs. This included potential risks involved in moving and handling people, supporting people with their personal care needs and with eating and drinking. Guidance was in place for staff to follow to make sure that any risks were minimised.
The agency had sufficient numbers of staff available to provide each person with a main live in member of staff or two live in staff members as needed. There were also sufficient staff available to accommodate live in staff when they had a week’s break.
People’s health care and nutrition needs had been comprehensively assessed and clear, step by step guidance was in place for staff to follow, to ensure that their specific health care needs were met. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s complex health care needs and liaised with health professionals and family members when appropriate.
Relatives said staff knew people extremely well as they spent their day together in the same house. People said staff were kind and caring and always respected their privacy and treated them with dignity. Staff demonstrated they knew people well and so could quickly respond to any change in their needs.
People’s needs were assessed before they were provided with a service and people and their relatives were fully involved in this process. These assessments were developed in to a personalised plan of care. The care plans gave detailed guidance to staff about how to care for each person’s individual needs and routines. As people had one or two main staff members to support them, staff were very knowledgeable about their likes, dislikes, choices and preferred routines.
People were informed of their right to raise any concerns about the service. Relatives said that when they had raised concerns that the agency was quick at addressing them to their satisfaction.
People said that they would recommend the service and that their views were listened to. Staff understood the aims of the service and put them into practice by providing personalised care. Staff had confidence in the management of the service which they said was supportive.
We found three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated activities 2014). You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.