We carried out a review of the data available to us about KIDS (London) 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 KIDS (London), you can give feedback on this service.
Kids (London) provides a short breaks service to children and young people with physical and/or learning disabilities in their family homes. The service provides personal care and support to participate in activities at home and within the local community. At the time of our inspection the service was providing support to six children and their families.
People’s experience of using this service:
Care and support was person centred. Children’s care plans and risk assessments included guidance for staff members about their care and support needs and preferences. They had been reviewed regularly and updated where there were any changes in needs.
Staff had received training about safeguarding and knew how to respond to any allegation or suspicion of harm or abuse.
The service ensured that recruitment of new staff members included checks in relation to their suitability, such as references and criminal records checks.
Staff had received training to ensure that they were able to meet the needs of the children they supported. Staff also engaged in regular supervision sessions with the registered manager to ensure that they were able to carry out their roles.
Care plans were in place for the children and young people supported by the service. These included guidance for staff on how to provide care and support in accordance with their preferences. Individual risk assessments included information on how to manage and reduce identified risks.
Children and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care. They were also involved in approving their care and support staff before they were assigned to work with them.
Regular surveys of views of the service had taken place. These showed high levels of satisfaction. Processes were in place to manage and respond to complaints and concerns.
The provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided. These were reviewed by the management team and actions had been taken to address any concerns.
Rating at last inspection:
The service was rated Good (Report published 7 September 2016)
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on our rating at the last inspection.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to inspect as part of our re-inspection programme.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
This inspection took place on 29 July 2016. At the last inspection on 3 February 2014 the provider was meeting all of the requirements we looked at.
At the time of our inspection 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 and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.
In general we found that there was a good and a high degree of satisfaction with the way the service worked with children, young people and their families. Relatives and people were confident about staff at the agency and felt able to discuss anything they wished to and staff were thought to be knowledgeable and skilled.
Although overwhelmingly the service cared for children and young people under the age of 18, one person who had just turned 18 also received care and support. The provider had ensured that policies, procedures and information in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were in place. This was to ensure that people who could not make decisions for themselves were protected. It should be noted that the agency would not have responsibility for making applications under either of these pieces of legislation; however, they would have responsibility for ensuring that any decision on DoLS and MCA 2005 were complied with.
People who used the service, children and young people, had a variety of complex support needs and from the four care plans that we looked at we found that the information and guidance provided to staff was clear. Any risks associated with children and young people’s care needs were assessed, and the action needed to mitigate against risks was recorded. We found that risk assessments were updated regularly and this included those risks associated with complex care needs and emergency situations.
During our review of care plans we found that the plans were tailored to children and young people’s unique and individual needs. Communication and methods of providing care and support were described in care plans and appropriate guidance for each person’s needs were in place and were regularly reviewed.
We looked at the training records of all of the 15 staff that provided personal care. Core training had been undertaken and the type of specialised training staff required was tailored to the needs of the children and young people they were supporting. We found that staff appraisals had been carried out annually and monthly staff supervision also occurred.
Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and worked in ways that demonstrated this. From the feedback we had from people and records we looked at, we found that people’s preferences had been recorded. Staff worked well to ensure these preferences were respected, and ensured the way they worked was child and young people friendly.
People and relatives were able to complain and told us in almost all cases they felt confident to do so if needed. People could therefore feel that any concerns they had would be listened to.
Most of the relatives of the children and young people who used the service told us that they provided their verbal feedback about the quality of the service to the registered manager and other staff.
We have not identified any breach of regulation as a result of this inspection.
We spoke to the parents of three children who used the service. One parent told us "Staff are good, they help my child alot." Another said "The staff are lovely, trustworthy and they give my child freedom, but set boundaries." Another said "I had to build up the trust, but I really like the staff they are very supportive. My child has a good relationship with the KIDS staff."
The provider had a policy on safeguarding. This detailed the various forms of abuse and the possible signs a person would look for.
We looked at the personal files for four members of staff and these contained a list of the various documents which we were told were required as part of an effective recruitment process.
We reviewed the provider's quarterly monitored reports for the past twelve months, which were submitted as part of their contract agreements. These required the provider to provide feedback on the work they were doing with children and issues such as staffing, complaints and feedback received from parents and children using the service.