PCAS Kent Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of the legal regulation(s) in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s care plans did not reflect their physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. One person’s care plan detailed they could go to the bathroom and wash independently. However, this person was cared for in bed. Another person’s care plan detailed they had previously had a brain injury, however there was no other information on how this affected the person day to day and they were therefore at risk of their needs not being understood or met by staff.

People were not always moved into homes that ensured their care was person centred. One person with a visual impairment was moved into on an emergency basis. People living there had already experienced a number of incidents regarding another person and staff and this was ongoing. Staff told us the placement was not suitable and that they would have objected to it if they have been involved. One of the staff told us, “We reviewed an assessment for [person] and it says they should not live with people who can’t move out the way quickly, yet they moved in someone who is visually impaired.” The provider had not ensured people were at the centre of the decisions regarding moving home.

Staff also told us they felt they needed more training around supporting people in a person centred way. One staff member told us, “More training should be given on person centred care and specialist training.” For example, one person had an acquired brain injury and the training matrix showed staff had not been provided with training around this. The persons care plan also didn’t have any guidance or information for staff regarding acquired brain injuries and how it effects this person.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. People did not always have care and support that was coordinated and ensured they had access to facilities they needed. One person’s access to toileting facilities, such as a commode, was limited due to their mobility needs and the level of funded staffing available. The person did not have the same experience as other people in their home.

People were supported to access the community, day centres and enjoy activities of their choosing with, or without staff support.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.