We carried out a review of the data available to us about Kentish Homecare 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 Kentish Homecare, you can give feedback on this service.
Kentish Homecare Agency Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. At the time of the inspection 63 people were receiving personal care.
People’s experience of using this service:
People and their relatives gave us positive feedback about their safety and told us staff treated them well. Staff administered prescribed medicines to people safely and people were protected from the risk of infection. People were supported by effectively deployed staff and their visits were monitored. The provider carried out comprehensive background checks of staff before they started work. The provider had a system to manage accidents and incidents.
Staff received support through training, supervision and appraisal to ensure they could meet people’s needs. Staff told us they felt supported and could approach the registered manager at any time for support. The registered manager worked within the principles of Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Staff asked for people’s consent, where they had the capacity to consent to their care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
An assessment of people’s needs had been completed to ensure these could be met by staff. The registered manager and staff worked with other external professionals to ensure people were supported to maintain good health. People and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care and support. People were treated with dignity, and their privacy was respected, and supported to be as independent in their care as possible.
People’s care plans reflected their current needs. Staff showed an understanding of equality and diversity. Staff respected people’s choices and preferences. People knew how to make a complaint. The registered manager knew what to do if someone required end-of life care.
Systems and processes to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service were in place. There was a management structure at the service and staff were aware of the roles of the management team. They told us the registered manager was approachable. The registered manager and staff worked as a team and in partnership with a range of professionals and acted on their advice.
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was good (published 02 September 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.
Kentish Homecare Agency Limited provides personal care and support for people with a range of support needs in their own homes in the London Borough of Bromley. On the day of our inspection there were 80 people using the service. There was an established Registered Manager in post who had registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was a qualified nurse and was directly involved in the day to day running of the service.
At this inspection we found improvements had been made to the way medicines were managed and to the effectiveness of the quality monitoring system. There were robust systems in place to ensure people received their medicines when they should and audits to track and identify any issues. Audits monitored the quality and safety of the service.
There were systems to ensure learning from any complaints, incidents or other issues were identified and shared with all staff through electronic communication newsletters and meetings. Call monitoring systems tracked that people received their care when they should and spot checks and supervision visits were completed with care workers in the field to monitor the quality of the care provided.
People and their relatives told us they felt safe using the service. Risks to people were identified and assessed and guidance on how to reduce risks was available to care workers. There were plans to deal with any emergencies. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs; who had been recruited safely. People usually had a small group of regular care workers who were familiar with their needs. People told us they were asked for their consent before care was provided and there were arrangements to comply with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People’s nutritional needs were met and supported where this was a planned part of their care.
People and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring and there were examples of staff providing extra support on occasions to help people. People were involved in their care and said they were consistently treated with dignity and respect.
Care plans were personalised to meet people’s individual needs and contained guidance for staff. There was a complaints process that people could access and people’s views about the service were frequently sought and any issues identified were acted on.
The registered manager had a strong commitment to the training, support and development of the staff. New staff received an induction and period of shadowing. Staff training and supervision was fully up to date and staff told us they were encouraged to undertake further training for their own development. People’s care plans were personalised and provided staff with guidance on how to meet their care and support needs.
Office staff and care workers told us the registered manager was very approachable, they enjoyed their work and that they worked well together as a team. Some staff had worked for the service for several years.
Kentish Homecare Agency Limited provides personal care and support for people in their own homes in the London Borough of Bromley. On the day of our inspection there were 87 people using the service.
Kentish Homecare Agency Limited had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
We found that medicine administration arrangements were not always clearly documented and this required improvement. There were processes in place to monitor the quality of the service however, these were not always effective. Audits did not include details of accidents and the measures put in place from them happening again or that the medicine administration arrangements for people were not always clearly recorded.
Safeguarding adult's procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. There was a whistle-blowing procedure available and staff said they would use it if they needed to.
There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs and there was an out of hours on call system. The provider conducted appropriate recruitment checks before staff started work to ensure staff were suitable and fit to support people using the service.
Staff received supervision, appraisals and training appropriate to their needs and the needs of people they supported to enable them to carry out their roles effectively. There were processes in place to ensure staff new to the service were inducted into the service appropriately.
The registered manager and staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and acted according to this legislation.
People’s nutritional needs and preferences were met and people had access to health and social care professionals when required.
People were treated with kindness and compassion and people's privacy and dignity was respected. People were provided with information about the service when they joined in the form of a 'service user guide' which included the service's complaints policy. People and their relatives knew about the home's complaints procedure and said they believed their complaints would be investigated and action taken if necessary.
People were involved in their care planning and the care and support they received was personalised and staff respected their wishes and met their needs. Support plans and risk assessments provided clear information for staff on how to support people using the service with their needs. Support plans were reflective of people's individual care needs and preferences and were reviewed on a regular basis. Peoples' care files were kept both in people's home and in the office. People were supported to be independent where possible such as attending to some aspects of their own personal care.
People told us they thought the service was generally well run and that the registered manager was supportive. There were systems in place to carry out staff spot checks to ensure consistency and quality was maintained whilst supporting people in the community. The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities as a registered manager in relation to notifying CQC about reportable incidents. People and relatives were provided with opportunities to provide feedback about the service.
We found that people were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. People's care and support needs were assessed and regularly reviewed. Staff understood people's care needs and knew how to protect them from risk and harm. We saw staff were qualified, skilled and experienced to meet people's needs. People's records were fit for purpose, kept securely, and could be located promptly when needed.
We used postal surveys, telephone interviews and home visit to people who use the service and to their main carers (a relative or friends) to gain views about the service.
We reviewed all the information we held about this service and carried out an unannounced visit to their office on 19 June 2012. We looked at the records of people who were using the service, care workers records and talked to with senior staff and care workers, people who use the services and their relatives.
We visited six people in their own homes on 20 June 2012. Some of the people we visited in their own homes had communication difficulties and we spoke to their relative on their behalf in order to make our judgement. An Expert by Experience carried out telephone interviews with 10 people using the service.
People and their relatives told us that the staff always spoke to them appropriately and used the name they preferred. One person said 'they are almost seemed like a relative and a friend' another person said 'they are clean and good'. Everyone we spoke with told us that they were provided with the care they needed and wanted at a time that suited them. One person told us sometime ago they requested for their leg to be washed, cream to be applied and stockings changed once a week. They said care workers did this 'without delay'.
All people we spoke with were aware of their care plans in their home, which set out their needs and tasks that care workers were required to carry out in respect of personal care and in supporting them. People and their relatives told us that at the end of each call the care worker made a written record of what they had done. They told us that care workers behaved appropriately when visiting them and were friendly and polite. One person told us 'they are reliable'. Another person said 'the care she received is second to none and it is an excellent service'.
People told us that they were periodically asked to give their opinion of the service. The people we visited in their homes confirmed that they could contact office if they needed to and if they were concerned about the standards of care they received.