National Care Group Kent Head Office

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 remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
 

This service scored 75 (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 support choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Leaders kept people’s support and relationships with staff under review. When a conflict was noted between what a person wanted and what staff were providing, action was taken to address this. A new support plan was written with the person and the staff supporting them changed. This had a positive impact on the person, their confidence developed and they became more independent. They had developed positive relationships with their peers, become more independent when out and about and had worked with their landlord to improve their home.

A relative confirmed they received the monthly newsletter which showed what everyone had been doing. This included trips out and about, fun and games people had enjoyed at home and celebrated people’s achievements.
 

The provider understood the diverse health and support needs of people and their local communities, so support was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff worked with local agencies to meet people’s diverse needs. They supported people to take part in a range of activities that promoted social interaction, engagement, and skill development. People were supported to take part in activities and pastimes they enjoyed. Relatives comments included, “My relative is quite passive and will sit on the sofa not wanting to do things. Staff give them choices to go out. Keep them active. Go for walks, out for lunch”, “They have been given more 1-1 support hours to go out. I see them out and about. It’s good”, and “They like to watch sport on the tv, goes for walks with staff. They go to a day centre 3 times a week”.

Staff described how they had encouraged and supported people to take part in pastimes they enjoyed. For example, one person enjoyed music and through joining a club was able to perform at a top London venue with an international singing star. Other people chose not to join clubs and preferred to go out and about locally. Staff explained how one person liked to visit a local fast food restaurant for lunch.
 

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

All the information people needed was provided to them in ways they could understand. This included how to make a complaint and identify and report abuse. Staff had access to a computer program which translated any document into a format which was easy for people to understand, including symbols. Relatives confirmed this. One relative told us, “My relative has simple language and needs visual timetables and images. It’s the best way to support the. The provider listened to us when we told them what way was best”.

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

People who wished, met with other people and staff regularly to discuss any concerns they had and what they would like to do in the future. People had made suggestions such as going out for meals with friends and having a party and had been supported by staff to arrange these.

People and relatives told us they felt confident to raise any concerns they had with the staff and manager. They told us any complaints had been investigated and satisfactory action had been taken by the provider. A relative told us, “I can speak to any of them at any time”.

Any concerns or complaints received had been investigated, in line with the provider’s policy and responses had been provided. Leaders had allocated specific days each month to be available to speak with people and relatives. Anyone who wanted could make and appointment to have a chat. These dates were widely publicised, including in the monthly newsletters. Any compliments received about staff were recorded and shared with the individual.

The provider had a system in operation to gather regular feedback from people, their representative and staff. The people and representative survey had been completed shortly before our inspection and feedback had been positive. Feedback from staff was being gathered at the time of our assessment.

The provider and registered manager made sure that people could access the support they needed when they needed it.

Staff and leaders explored how people could achieve their goals, including taking part in activities, maintaining friendships and relationships and taking part in activities the rest of the community enjoyed. They told us people had experienced discrimination at times because of their disabilities and “They are entitled to do what they want to and we are always there as a support for them”. Some people had chosen to wear a green lanyard to help the public understand they had a disability and needed additional time or support.

When people’s needs changed the leadership team worked with people’s social workers to ensure enough hours were commissioned to provide the support people needed to remain safe and well. The leadership team deployed additional staff to meet the person’s needs whilst assessments were being completed to make sure people always received the support they required.
 

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

Staff had recognised when people were at risk of discrimination while out and about, such as members of the public tutting at them when they went to see shows. They had worked with venues to plan people’s seating, such as at the end of a row, so they could easily get to and from their seats. This had reduced the risk of discrimination, whilst supporting people to take part in pastimes they enjoyed.

Senior leaders had recognised that people were seen as ‘different’ when they went out with staff wearing identification badges. The process had changed and staff still took the badges with them but did not wear them. This had changed the public’s perception from a group of people supported by staff to a group of friends out enjoying themselves.

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.

Systems were in place to support people and their relatives to plan for big changes in their life, such as a bereavement. Where people had not had the opportunity to make plans and were struggling with their grief, staff had arranged for them to have grief counselling to help them understand their feelings. They had developed new routines to help people at difficult times, such as a loved one's birthday, to help them remember in a positive way and share their feelings.

Staff had supported people and their relatives at the end of people’s lives. When one person had been admitted to hospital, staff had taken their relative to visit the person regularly, so they had the opportunity to maintain their relationship and receive the love and support their relative offered. A relative had written to staff thanking them for the care and support they had offered them and their loved one. This including thanks to a leader “For being there when I needed a shoulder to cry on, I relay appreciate it at this awful time”.