Archived: Age Concern Malling

Updated 22 August 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 registered persons continued to meet the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

We used information the registered persons sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require registered persons to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also examined other information we held about the service. This included notifications of incidents that the registered persons had sent us since our last inspection. These are events that happened in the service that the registered persons are required to tell us about. We also invited feedback from the commissioning bodies who contributed to purchasing some of the care provided by the service. We did this so that they could tell us their views about how well the service was meeting people’s needs and wishes.

Shortly before our inspection visit to the service’s office location, we spoke by telephone with 11 people who used the service and with four of their relatives. We wanted to find out what it was like to receive care calls from the service. We also spoke by telephone with five care staff so that they could tell us about their experience of working in the service.

We visited the service’s office location on 1 August 2018 and the inspection was announced. We gave the service 48 hour's notice because it is small and the registered manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be available to contribute to the inspection. We spoke with the administrator, two senior care workers and the registered manager. We looked at the care records for six people who used the service. We also examined records relating to how the service was run including the times and the duration of care calls, staffing, the management of medicines, the obtaining of consent and the delivery of training. In addition to this, we examined the systems and processes used to assess, monitor and evaluate the service.

Updated 22 August 2018

We inspected the service on 1 August 2018. The inspection was announced. Age Concern Malling is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to younger adults, older people, people who live with dementia and people who need support to maintain their mental health.

The service covers Malling, Hadlow, Borough Green, Wateringbury and Larkfield. There were 180 people using the service at the time of our inspection visit. Some of the people using the service received help with housework and meal preparation by care staff calling to their homes. Other people received assistance with bathing. This service was delivered either in people’s own homes or by calling to Rotary House that has a bathroom which is suitable for use by people who have physical adaptive needs. Rotary House is a resource centre located in West Malling where the service also has its office location. Other people received a foot care service that was delivered in their homes, in clinics hosted in doctors' surgeries and also in Rotary House.

The service was run by a charitable body who was the registered provider. There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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. In this report when we speak about both the charitable body and the registered manager we refer to them as being, ‘the registered persons’.

At the last comprehensive inspection on 12 February 2016 the overall rating of the service was, ‘Good’.

At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found that the service remained, ‘Good’.

People were safeguarded from situations in which they may experience abuse including financial mistreatment. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed, monitored and managed so they were supported to stay safe while their freedom was respected. Medicines were managed safely. There were enough staff on duty and background checks had been completed before new care staff had been appointed. Suitable arrangements were in place to prevent and control infection and lessons had been learned when things had gone wrong.

Care was delivered in a way that promoted positive outcomes for people and care staff had the knowledge and skills they needed to provide support in line with legislation and guidance. This included respecting people’s citizenship rights under the Equality Act 2010. People received the individual assistance they needed to prepare their meals and they were helped to have a balanced diet to promote their good health. Suitable steps had been taken to ensure that people received coordinated and person-centred care when they used or moved between different services. People had been supported to live healthier lives by having suitable access to healthcare services so that they received on-going healthcare support. People were supported to maintain and decorate their accommodation so that it met their needs and expectations.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. The registered persons had also taken the necessary steps to ensure that people only received lawful care that was the least restrictive possible. Policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion and they had been given emotional support when needed. They had also been supported to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care as far as possible. This included them having access to lay advocates if necessary. Confidential information was kept private.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs and which promoted their independence. This included them having access to information that was presented to them in an accessible way. People were supported to lead the everyday lives they had chosen for themselves including pursuing their hobbies and interests. The registered manager and care staff recognised the importance of promoting equality and diversity. This included appropriately supporting people if they chose gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex life-course identities. There were arrangements to ensure that people’s complaints were listened and responded to in order to improve the quality of care. Suitable provision had been made to support people at the end of their life to have a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death.

The registered persons had promoted a person-centred culture in the service and had made the arrangements necessary to ensure that regulatory requirements were met. People who used the service, their relatives and care staff were actively engaged in developing the service. There were systems and procedures to enable the service to learn, improve and assure its sustainability. The registered persons were actively working in partnership with other agencies to support the development of joined-up care.