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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care and support plans had improved since we last assessed the service. Most care plans provided clear information about people’s care and support needs and how staff should meet these. However, a person did not have an epilepsy care plan in place. Another person’s care plan did not show staff what support they needed to provide in relation to eating and drinking. The person had a choking risk assessment in place which indicated some care and support needs. We discussed these with the provider who took action to review and update them.

People told us their needs were met. A person said, “They wash my hair in the shower and do the bits I can’t reach”. Another person told us, “Staff help me with a shower and a shave, they helped me today.”

We observed interactions at some people’s homes. At one house we observed a staff member asking the person if there was anything they would like them to do. The person asked the staff member to plait their hair. The staff member explained they were not very good at it, but they would try. The staff member made a small plait for the person which they were happy with.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. However, a relative reported to us about an incident where a new staff member did not know their loved one, had taken them out in the community without following the person’s planned routine. This had caused the person distress. The provider had acted on the incident and removed the staff member from the person’s support and reviewed induction processes to ensure new staff who did not know people’s routines well did not get rostered to provide this type of support. Most people had support from staff they knew well. Relatives said, “There are regulars [staff] they also use agency, not so much lately as they have more trained more permanent staff” and “I like carers, I actually love them, some have worked with him for ten years and they really have got to know him and how to deal with him.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We observed communication was tailored to meet people’s needs. There were easy read documents in place if anyone needed them. We observed staff communicating with people which met their needs. Staff detailed they supported people with their communication in a number of ways including using flash cards, individualised communication systems with people, through use of tablets and iPads. A staff member said, “With the non-verbal service user we use objects of reference to communicate. He has a new iPad, with PEC (picture exchange system) cards he isn’t interested. He has been referred to the SaLT team so hopefully we will be taught some new techniques. The staff that work with him know how he communicates; he has no problem telling us what is wrong.” Relatives told us communication met their loved ones needs.

A health and social care professional said, “[Person] has been expanding his vocabulary with support from staff and often repeats words. He is using key words to communicate with them, and they respond in a similar way. The care provider recognises his interest in music and dancing, and he has been supported to engage in music therapy sessions with a professional experienced in working with individuals with visual impairments.”

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider supported people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support; people’s feedback was acted on.

The provider had systems in place to support people and relatives to express their views. People had completed surveys and were invited to attend regular forums to discuss survey responses, making improvements and changes. People’s responses were listened to. For example, some people wanted to learn some new skills and complete courses. The provider had arranged for first aid and wellbeing courses later in year. Staff had also been sent surveys to have opportunities to feedback about training, staff culture,

People told us they could complain if they needed to. People said, “I would talk to the staff if I was worried, I could also talk with [operations manager]”, “If I was sad and unhappy I would talk to the staff and they would help” and “I chat to the staff if I need help. I have my phone and I can contact my sister and I have [manager’s] number and I can call her if I need to.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

There was a clear criteria and people’s needs were assessed before using the service. People’s package of support would only be accepted if the staff had the appropriate skills to provide safe care to an individual.

People were supported with emergency medical appointments and any routine or follow-up appointments that needed to take place. There were processes in place to ensure that people could receive care, support and treatment when they needed it. The service supported people to use their local GP surgery, hospital or minor injuries unit if they required it.

We observed interactions between staff and people during our visits. We observed safe practice whilst enabling people to maintain their routines and move around their homes as they wanted. Some people were able to move about their homes independently; some people needed support with mobility equipment or guidance. A person had a visual impairment but had received support to enable them to learn how to move about the home they shared with others. We observed staff safely supporting them and enabling the person to do things for themselves. The person had blue strips around their bedroom door as a visual aid. A health and social care professional said, “Over time, it became evident that the service was delivering a good standard of care to [person]. The staff team engaged with Kent Association for the Blind over several months and received specialist training on visual impairment awareness, sighted guiding techniques, and recommendations for meaningful activities aligned with [person’s] interests.”

People and their relatives told us they knew who to contact if they needed additional support or wanted changes made to their care arrangements. They described the service as flexible and responsive to their needs. A person told us, “When we had a review we had a change of hours.”

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff were made aware of the provider’s equality and diversity policy at induction. The management team were aware of Right support, right care, right culture (RSRCRC). This applies to services for people with autism or people with a learning disability to ensure they receive the respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local amenities that most people take for granted. We observed the principles of the guidance were fully embedded into practice within the service. People received a variety of support and went out independently with friends, relatives or were supported to go out into the community by staff. People were supported to maintain contact with relatives and have visitors to their homes. Some people did not have active involvement of relatives. A relative felt staff did not do enough to help their loved one maintain contact as their loved one did not make contact with them as often as they would like.

People told us, “I like living on my own and having my own independence, I have my own bus pass, and I go out with staff”, “I am happy here. I like the Cyclopark and going to clubs”, “I go to the barbers for my haircut, I go to one in town. I like to go into town. I am happy. I like looking in the charity shops” and “I love living here. I go out a lot”. I am taking a taxi shortly to go to the gym where I do weights.”

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People were supported with important life changes. When people experienced a bereavement, support had been accessed for them. People were also supported to plan for other future events. People were supported to live independently. People were supported to plan and go on holidays.

Nobody receiving support from PCAS Kent Ltd was in receipt of end of lifecare, no care or support plans detailed people’s advanced wishes in relation to future care and support should they become unwell or be at the end of their life.