KML Kare

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. This key question changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 54 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective and person-centred. People’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs were not always discussed with them.

Care plans were not person-centred. Some care plan reviews had been completed but they were not carried out regularly. Reviews had not identified the issues we found in care documentation.

There was mixed feedback about whether people had been involved in their care planning. One person said, “I don’t know about a care plan.” However, a relative said, “We have a care plan with 6 month updates.”

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Records were not always person-centred. Where people required specialist equipment, risks were not always mitigated.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. Staff worked well together to give people positive, effective care. One staff member said, “Staff work together well, we all work as a team and support each other.” A healthcare professional said, “I have met with individual carers as well as teams of carers from KML Kare. The care team appear to have positive relations and always present well within pre discharge meetings held. [The registered manager] is accessible, responsive and there have been no concerns regarding communication which has always been positive. [The registered manager] has always demonstrated a good knowledge of individual patients/clients in all communication.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. Records were not always person-centred; care record reviews had not identified the issues we found during inspection.

The provider did not always follow best practice guidance around consent and did not always respect people’s rights when delivering care and treatment.

People were not always supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives. The registered manager did not demonstrate a clear understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. Staff had received training regarding the MCA and policies were in line with the principles of the MCA.

Checks were not always carried out to ensure people’s power of attorney arrangements were legitimate. The registered manager was unable to explain when a mental capacity assessment might be required or how to make a best interest decision. However, we found no evidence that harm had occurred because of this.