Maidstone Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained Requires Improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in continued breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

This service scored 62 (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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. Staff and leaders felt positive about the shared direction and culture of the service. They told us they had worked hard since the last inspection to address previous breaches of regulation and improve the service overall. We found the service had improved in many areas although there was still work to be done around medicines management and the governance surrounding this.

The culture at the service was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. A staff member said, “Its lovely here because they have a very accommodating spirit. They are not hostile. They correct you when you make mistakes but don't victimise or punish you. You don't go to work fidgeting. There is calmness and peace if I may put it that way. We don't see the managers or seniors managers and feel scared. They talk to you with respect too.” A relative told us, “The best thing is the open-door policy. I feel the staff are honest with me. They always make me feel welcome."

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

At the time of our inspection there was a new manager in post who had been at the service for 6 weeks. Their application to be registered manager was approved during the inspection. Staff were all positive about the new registered manager. A staff member said, “We have had too many managers. It’s hard because everyone has their own approach and expectations. I hope [current manager] stays. [They are] direct and clear on [their] expectations. [Registered manager] is easy to talk to and approachable.”

Most people and relative knew the manager and were aware the manager was new and commented they “see her around.”

The service had maintained some stability during the management changes as the Regional Director had remained in post since the last inspection and had worked with staff, leaders and external professionals to encourage and monitor the improvements made at Maidstone Care Centre. The leadership team were all knowledgeable about the people the service was supporting and the staff team.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff knew the processes in place to support them to speak up and they felt confident that they would be able to do so. A staff member said, “I know how to whistle blow but here I have not had any reason to. There is transparency and openness so no need to whistleblow.”

Staff gave examples of when they had been asked for their feedback, and this had been acted on. For example, a staff member told us, “The new manager is very good. I like [them]. When [they] came [they] asked me what I want to do my job. I told [the new manager] I needed different things, and [they] provided it. It made the job easier because we are not looking for materials."

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff felt their rights were protected. A staff member said, “I know my right to speak up about bullying, harassment… but I have not experienced those issues here.” Processes to support workforce equality, diversity and inclusion were in place including at the recruitment phase. Activities within the service also celebrated cultures.

Although there had been improvement in the governance at Maidstone Care Centre across many areas of service. We found that the governance and management of medicines had not been sufficient to ensure that people’s medicines management was safe and robust.

Processes in place to check the stock of medicines had not been effective to identify when medicines were still accessible and for 1 person, medicine was used past the use-by date. Although staff at the home had made regular checks on medicine stock they had failed to identify this issue which placed people at potential risk of harm. The medicine audits completed by management also lacked the robustness to identify this specific issue. The provider carried out a full stock check following the inspection and put a system in place to ensure this would not happen again. The processes in place had also not been effective to ensure people did not run out of their prescribed medicines. The provider had failed to ensure sufficient robust action was taken by staff to ensure low stock medicines were obtained before stock ran out, this meant 26 people were left without some of their prescribed medicines for small periods of time between August and October 2025. This concern had not been identified as a safeguarding concern at the time of our inspection and had not been notified to relevant partners. The provider raised this following our inspection.

We also found that important records in relation to when people’s medicines were given covertly were not always clear, accurate and consistent. For example, although authorisation had been given verbally in relation to how some people’s medicines were administered covertly, we found for 1 person this record was not yet in place. The provider demonstrated this was put in place following our inspection.

Despite improvement made in other areas of governance the concerns in relation to the governance to support safe medicine management has resulted in continued breaches of regulation at Maidstone Care Centre and further work is needed to improve this area. The provider had taken some action to address these concerns, and we will check these have been effective and embedded at our next inspection.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The service worked in partnership with other health and social care professionals to meet people’s needs. People had access to services they needed. For example, a person told us, “I go to the hairdresser here.”

People were supported to maintain relationships with those important to them including other communities. For example, people from other local communities were invited into the home such as religious leaders.

The service had been involved in fundraising to support the local community.

Although the provider had been focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system; there was still some work to be done to improve medicines management and the governance processes to ensure this is safe and effective at the service.

At this inspection we found new and significant issues with the medicine management. Although no evidence of harm was found during the inspection, the findings resulted in continued breaches in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance. The provider was receptive to feedback during the inspection and had taken action to address these concerns. We will check this at our next inspection.

However, there had been many areas of improvement across the home since the last inspection and areas previously identified had been addressed. The service had met 3 of the previous breaches in relation to consent, person-centred care and fit and proper persons. There had been improvement in the service’s risk management and governance in other areas previously identified.