Maidstone Care Centre

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 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 now 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.

A staff member said, “We read the care plans and by daily interaction with the client you learn more about them.” Another staff member said, “We have learnt preferences and how a person likes things.”

People’s care records contained personalised information about their likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff followed these when providing people with their care such as how people liked to be dressed or what people liked to eat and drink or how they liked to spend their time. A person told us the staff supported them with their personal interests; we observed staff doing this during our inspection. Another person told us, “The staff know that I don’t like yoghurt, I prefer fresh fruit.” A relative said, “The best thing is that the staff treat [relative] like family and know [their] quirks.” Relatives also told us staff had personalised people’s rooms.

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.

Staff felt the service provided continuity in people’s care. A staff member told us, “We work together, cover leave and sickness, and plan how we do our work every day.” Most people and relatives felt there was good continuity in their care and that their regular carers knew them well. A person said, “I know the people and I feel they know me.” The registered manager had implemented a system where staff were working across all floors in the home to support staff to develop understanding of all people’s needs. This was to improve care continuity when staff covered any sickness or holiday within the service. While this system was embedding into practice feedback from some people was that some staff did not know people’s needs as well as others.

Some people and relatives commented that the service had a high staff turnover. The management team demonstrated that the staff turnover was below the national average, however acknowledged that small staff changes can have an impact on people.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. A person told us, “There are notices around the home. I can read them if I want to. I can read the menu.” Another person showed us they had the activities timetable and lunch menu in their room so they knew what was available and could choose what they wanted.

Staff gave examples of how they adjusted their communication to support people to be able to understand them effectively. A staff member said, “When you are communicating use signs, gestures and expressions. Show pictures to help them choose.”

We observed staff ensured they were visible for people and went to the level the person was at when they were speaking with them for example sitting down. Staff adjusted their communication with people to support them to understand such as, speaking loudly and clearly or pointing at things to guide people’s attention. A relative said, “When they change [person’s name], I have heard the staff talking through with [person] what they are doing, so that [person] is aware of what is happening.”

People were supported to wear their glasses and staff ensured people’s hearing aids were working if they were having difficulty hearing.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Most people and relatives were aware there were meetings they could attend for information about the service. A relative said, “I have been told that there are residents’ meetings, but I don’t like to go.” Another relative told us, “I receive a newsletter every 2-3 months, and also feedback from the staff meetings, new staff, the minutes of the meetings.”

People and relatives felt listened to. A relative said, “I feel listened to by the manager. I haven’t needed to make a formal complaint.” The service had a complaints procedure in place which had been followed for any complaints received, and the management team proactively followed up any negative external feedback to acknowledge people’s views, create resolutions and improve the service.

Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. A relative said, “They sit with us at the nursing station for the care plan, we put an extra page in when she was ill. Make sure care plan is right and up to date."

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

Staff made referrals to other professionals when required to ensure people had equal access to the care and support they needed. A professional confirmed the service ensured people had access to their services. People and relatives also confirmed they had access to a variety of support for their health or social needs. A relative told us, “The optician visits [person’s name] at the home.”

People were able to access the facilities within the home as well as the garden. If activities in the home were taking place on different floors staff supported people to attend where they wanted to.

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.

People were supported to have equity in their experiences as they had access to any aids or equipment they needed such as spectacles, hearing aids, specialised cups, call bells to summon help and walking aids. A person told us, “I feel okay here at the moment. Everything is close by, and I am looked after.”

People and most relatives were happy with the support given by the service to meet people’s needs. Most people and relatives were happy with the activities on offer and staff’s engagement.

A person told us, “There are activities here, bingo, arts and crafts, exercises, singing. I can join in with all of them…We aren’t lacking anything.” A relative commented, “I think that they do really well with the activities, baking, cooking, gardening, painting…[relative] can do what [they] want.” Whereas, another person said, “There isn’t anything that I would like to do.” However, the person went on to say, “When I go into the lounge, I like to play Connect 4 with one of the carers. I always used to beat [them], but I told [them] to concentrate more, and now [they] always beat me.” Another person said, “There are less activities than there used to be. Saturday and Sunday are a bit flat. I go out in the garden in the summer."

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’s goals and future plans were recorded as part of their care planning. At the time of our inspection the service was not providing any end-of-life care. The home kept records of whether people had a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) status. The service had received compliments from relatives for the end-of-life care the staff team had previously provided.