We carried out a review of the data available to us about Home Instead Senior Care (Maidstone) 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 Home Instead Senior Care (Maidstone), you can give feedback on this service.
Home Instead Senior Care is a domiciliary care service. At the time of the inspection the service was supporting 24 people with the regulated activity personal care. People receiving support from the service were adults or older people. Some people were living with dementia. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. The Care Quality Commission (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 their relatives told us the service was extremely caring and staff went out of their way to provide them with great levels of support. Relatives said, “I think it is an excellent service.”, “I have recommended the service to someone.” And, “They are a refreshing change.” Staff developed trusting bonds with people and treated people with respect and dignity and were kind to people forming close relationships with them.
People and their relatives were at the centre of planning people’s care. This started at the assessment stage where assessments concentrated on the outcomes people wanted to achieve. People were well supported to express their views and make their preferences known. People were supported to be independent there was a strong focus on promoting social inclusion and enabling people to live lead active lives. Treating people with dignity and respect was at the heart of staffs working practices.
Staff were highly skilled and had access to a wide range of training courses which benefited people. Staff were highly motivated and very well supported and had used their skills and knowledge to improve outcomes for people.
Staff were committed to providing people with excellent support with eating and drinking and maintaining a good diet. They had acted when people were not eating well and used their skills and knowledge to support people to maintain or re-gain weight were appropriate. Staff had gone above and beyond people’s expectations to support people to live healthier lives and access the healthcare they needed.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff ensured people’s rights were protected.
The provider was committed to delivering high standards of care drive forward improvements. The provider ensured staff were extremely well motivated and regularly went the extra mile to provide excellent levels of support to people.
The provider shared learning with people, their relatives and with the wider community. This meant people were better informed about their choices and the health conditions they lived with. People, their relatives and staff were at the core of quality improvement. The provider listened and responded to suggestions where the service could improve.
The service was safe. Staff knew people well and had a good understanding of the risks people faced from health conditions or their environment and provided them with good levels of support. Medicines were well managed, and people were protected from the risk of abuse. When things did go wrong the providers were open and honest and learnt lessons.
Care provided to people was person centred, care focused on people’s preferences and the outcomes they wanted to achieve. When people were supported at the end of their lives they were supported to achieve their end of life goals such as going on holiday or seeing old friends.
Complaints were well responded to.
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 13 December 2016).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
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.
The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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.
People were supported by staff who understood the risks people could face and knew how to make people feel safe. People were encouraged to be independent and risks were mitigated in the least restrictive way possible.
People were supported by consistent staff who they knew. People who required support to take their medicines received assistance to do so when this was needed.
People were provided with the care and support they wanted by staff who were trained and supported to do so. People’s human right to make decisions for themselves was respected and they provided consent to their care when needed.
People were supported by staff who understood their health conditions and ensured they had sufficient to eat and drink to maintain their wellbeing.
People were provided with a creative and person centred service which was caring and consistent. People described the service they received in exceptional terms and staff displayed dedication and commitment to their work. People decided what care and support they needed which was provided in a manner that valued and respected each person who used the service.
People were able to influence the way their care and support was delivered and they could rely on this being provided as they wished. People were informed on how to express any issues or concerns they had so these could be investigated and acted upon.
People who used the service and care workers were able to express their views about the service which were acted upon. The management team provided leadership that gained the respect of care workers and motivated them as a team. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and make improvements when needed.
Below is a summary of what we found.
At the time of the inspection one person was receiving personal care and support from the service. The service was providing a number of other people with a companionship service, this type of service is not regulated by the Commission. We spoke with four members of staff and one relative.
Is the service safe?
Written guidance was in place for staff to follow to make sure that they provided care and support safely to people. Staff received the training they needed be able to provide care safely.
The service made sure that equipment used, such as hoists, was in good working order so that people were supported safely
Is the service effective?
People were involved in the assessment process and involved in developing their individual plan of care. This meant that they influenced the support they received.
The service promoted people's health and wellbeing. Thank you letters from people and relatives showed that people's quality of life had improved due to the care and support provided by staff and that people and relatives valued the service.
The service had a complaints procedure, a relative told us a concern they had raised had been addressed satisfactorily.
Is the service caring?
The service made sure that staff had plenty of time for people, did not rush them and allowed them to be as independent as they could. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people's needs.
Is the service responsive?
The service supported people to access other agencies when they needed to, and had built up a network of organisations to liaise with.
People were informed if staff were going to be late for a visit or if there were any changes to the staff they expected to be supporting them.
Is the service well led?
Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities, told us they were well supported and enjoyed working for the service.
The service had internal systems in place to monitor its quality. We saw that it took prompt action if areas for improvement were identified.
We spoke with two people who used the service, three relatives and two members of staff. People confirmed that their needs were assessed before care was provided. They had copies of their care records at home and said their care was regularly reviewed.
People felt involved in how their care and support was provided, they said staff respected that they liked to keep as independent as possible. They said they felt safe with staff and staff respected their property.
People were complimentary about staff. They said 'Such lovely people come to see me, I would not change them for anything' and 'They help me a great deal'. They said staff were kind, reliable, respectful, supported them in the ways they preferred and that their dignity was maintained.
People were positive about the service, one person said 'Everything is going very well'. No one we spoke with had any concerns but people knew who to go to with if they did have any concerns or complaints.