You are here

Kent Carers Limited - Head Office Requires improvement

We are carrying out checks at Kent Carers Limited - Head Office using our new way of inspecting services. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 1 December 2016

We carried out an inspection of Kent Carers Limited - Head Office on 24 October 2016. This was an announced inspection where we gave the provider notice because we needed to ensure someone would be available to speak with us.

Kent Carers Limited - Head Office is a domiciliary care service providing personal care to people in their own home. At the time of our inspection there was one person who received personal care from the agency.

The service was last inspected on 3 March 2014. During the inspection we found people were not protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment. Accurate and appropriate records were not maintained in relation to daily notes on the support provided by carers to people and references had not been obtained when recruiting staff.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

Risk assessments were not updated to reflect the person’s current needs and did not take into consideration their health needs. However, staff were aware of the risks to the person and how to mitigate those risks.

The person was protected from abuse and avoidable harm. The relative we spoke to told us they were happy with the support received from the service. Staff knew how to report alleged abuse and were able to describe the different types of abuse.

Assessments were not being completed in accordance to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff had not been trained in MCA. Both staff we spoke to were unable to tell us the principles of the MCA.

Staff told us they were supported by the management team and had received supervision and spot checks. Supervision meetings and spot checks findings had not been recorded that could be used to ensure high quality care was being delivered at all times.

There was no documentation to show that audits were being carried out on the person’s records, such as risk assessments that would have helped identified the issues we found during the inspection.

Staff meetings were being held but the meetings were not being documented.

Staff had not received training from the service to ensure knowledge and skills were kept up to date.

The relative we spoke to told us that staff communicated well with them and with their family member.

There were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet the person’s needs.

Pre-employment checks had been undertaken to ensure staff were suitable for the role.

There was a formal complaints procedure with response times. Staff knew how to respond to complaints in accordance with the service’s complaint policy.

The person was supported to maintain good health.

The person was encouraged to be independent and their privacy and dignity was maintained.

We identified three breaches of regulations relating to training, mental capacity and record keeping. You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 1 December 2016

The service was safe.

Risk assessment had not been documented adequately. However, staff were aware of risks to the person.

The relative told us they were happy with the support the person received from the service.

The person was protected by staff who understood how to identify abuse and who to report to.

Recruitment procedures were in place to ensure staff were fit to undertake their roles and there were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people's needs.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 1 December 2016

Some parts of the service were not effective.

The person’s rights was not being consistently upheld in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff had not been trained in MCA.

Staff told us they received supervision and were supported. Supervision meetings had not been recorded.

Training had not been provided to staff. Staff told us they had received mandatory training in their previous jobs.

Caring

Good

Updated 1 December 2016

The service was caring.

The relative told us that staff were caring and respected people’s privacy and dignity.

Staff had good knowledge and understanding of the person’s background and preferences.

Responsive

Good

Updated 1 December 2016

The service was responsive.

Staff were able to tell us the support and care the person received.

The person participated in activities. Staff knew what the person liked and disliked.

There was a complaints system in place. Staff were able to tell us how they would respond to complaints.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 1 December 2016

Some aspects of the service were not well-led.

Spot checks findings were not being recorded.

Quality assurance systems were not in place to make continuous improvements

Staff meetings were not being recorded.

Staff were supported by management.