We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Kent Autistic Trust - 52a River Drive 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 The Kent Autistic Trust - 52a River Drive, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The provider was following appropriate updated best practice guidance in terms of ensuring visitors to the home did not spread COVID-19. Visitors were asked about their Lateral Flow Test (LFT) result to ensure they were negative before staff facilitated the visit and temperatures were taken. Visitors were also advised to sanitise their hands-on arrival and face masks were provided. Appropriate updated visiting policy and procedure was in place.
Plans were in place for those who may be required to self-isolate. For those people who may struggle with isolation additional support would be provided. The service had good supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) such as masks and hand sanitisers that were readily available in the service.
Staff had received training on how to keep people safe during the COVID-19 pandemic and staff were regularly tested for COVID-19 through the LFT. The building was clean and free from clutter and there were enhanced cleaning practices.
The Kent Autistic Trust - 52A River Drive is a care home for people needing residential care. The home is run by The Kent Autistic Trust, and can provide care and support for up to four people with autism. Bedrooms are on one floor of the building and there is a communal lounge and dining room. All of the bedrooms have en suite wash facilities. Since the last inspection the building had been altered and converted into a smaller residential home with a separate flat above it. At the time of our inspection there were three people living at the service.
People living in the home had varying levels of communication. People had complex needs. They required high levels of support to enable them to be safe, engage with others and live as independently as possible. One person was able to verbally communicate whilst two people did not. Staff used different methods to communicate with each person which was individual to each of their needs.
At the last inspection on 28 September 2015, the service was rated Good.
At this inspection, we found the service had remained Good.
The management of the service was overseen by a board of trustees for The Kent Autistic Trust. Trustees and the chief executive officer for the trust visited the service regularly.
The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was also registered manager for one of the provider’s other local services. They split their time equally between the two services. The registered manager was supported by the area operational manager and the head of care for the organisation.
Staff and people received additional support and guidance from the provider’s positive behaviour support team as well as the provider’s speech and language therapist and occupational therapist. Strategies were in place to manage any incidents of heightened anxiety and behaviours that others may find challenging.
People and their relatives had opportunities to give feedback about the service in a variety of ways. Relatives and professionals were positive about the service received.
The service provided excellent care and support to people enabling them to live as fulfilled and meaningful lives as possible.
The provider had sustained good practice, development and improvement at the service. The provider had achieved accreditation and continued to work in partnership with organisations to develop best practice within the service. Staff were highly motivated and were actively involved in and contributed to continuous development and improvement.
The provider had a strong set of values that were embedded into each staff member’s practice and the way the service was managed. Staff were committed and proud of the service. The provider and registered manager used effective systems to continually monitor and improve the quality of the service.
Staff knew how to protect people from the risk of abuse or harm. Staff followed appropriate guidance to minimise identified risks to people's health, safety and welfare.
The feedback we received from relatives and health and social care professionals was excellent. They spoke very highly of the registered manager and the staff team. Everyone within the organisation was highly motivated and committed to ensuring people that used the service had good quality care.
The provider operated safe and robust recruitment and selection procedures to make sure staff were suitable and safe to work with people. There were suitable numbers of staff to safely meet people’s needs. Staff received regular training and supervision to help them to meet people's needs effectively.
People received their medicines when they should and medicines were handled safely.
The registered manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.
People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. People received the support they needed to stay healthy and to access healthcare services.
Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity. Interactions between staff and people were caring and kind. Staff were patient, compassionate and they demonstrated affection and warmth in their discussions with people.
Care plans detailed people’s preferred routines, their wishes and preferences. They detailed what people were able to do for themselves and what support was required from staff to aid their independence wherever possible. People were involved in review meetings about their support and aspirations.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
The inspection took place on 28 September 2015 and it was unannounced.
The Kent Autistic Trust – 52a River Drive is a care home providing personal care and accommodation for up to six adults with an autistic spectrum condition. The home is set out over two floors. There were five people living in the home, when we inspected.
Management of the home was overseen by a board of trustees for The Kent Autistic Trust. Trustees and the chief executive officer for the trust visited the home regularly.
The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were unable to verbally tell us about their experiences. People were relaxed around the staff and in their own home. We received positive feedback from relatives about all aspects of the service.
Staff knew and understood how to safeguard people from abuse, they had attended training, and there were effective procedures in place to keep people safe from abuse and mistreatment.
Risks to people had been identified. Systems had been put in place to enable people to carry out activities safely with support.
The premises and gardens were well maintained and suitable for people’s needs. The home was clean, tidy and free from offensive odours.
Medicines were appropriately managed to ensure that people received their medicines as prescribed. Records were clear and the administration and management of medicines was properly documented.
Staff and people received additional support and guidance from the behaviour support manager when there had been incidents of heightened anxiety. Staff received regular support and supervision from the management team.
There were suitable numbers of staff on shift to meet people’s needs. The provider followed safe recruitment procedures to ensure that staff working with people were suitable for their roles. Robust recruitment procedures were followed to make sure that only suitable staff were employed.
Procedures and guidance in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was in place which included steps that staff should take to comply with legal requirements. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Where people were subject to a DoLS, the registered manager had made appropriate applications.
People had access to drinks and nutritious food that met their needs and they were given choice.
People received medical assistance from healthcare professionals when they needed it. Staff knew people well and recognised when people were not acting in their usual manner and took appropriate action.
Relatives told us that staff were kind, caring and communicated well with them. Interactions between people and staff were positive and caring. People responded well to staff and engaged with them in activities.
People and their relatives had been involved with planning their own care. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People’s information was treated confidentially and personal records were stored securely.
Relatives told us that they were able to visit their family members at any reasonable time, they were always made to feel welcome and there was always a nice atmosphere within the home.
People’s view and experiences were sought during meetings. Relatives were also encouraged to feedback during meetings and by completing questionnaires.
People were encouraged to take part in activities that they enjoyed, this included activities in the home and in the local community. People were supported to be as independent as possible.
The complaints procedure was on display within the foyer of the home and this was also available in an easy read format to support people’s communication needs.
Relatives and staff told us that the home was well run. Staff were positive about the support they received from the senior managers within the organisation. They felt they could raise concerns and they would be listened to.
Communication between staff within the home was good. They were made aware of significant events and any changes in people’s behaviour. Handovers between staff going off shift and those coming on shift were documented, they were detailed and thorough.
The provider and registered manager had notified CQC about important events such as injuries and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) these had been submitted to CQC in a timely manner.
Audit systems were in place to ensure that care and support met people’s needs and that the home was suitable for people. Actions arising from audits had been dealt with quickly.
People were involved in making decisions and choices about their daily lives, including what they wanted to eat and drink. We saw that people were encouraged to be as independent as possible in carrying out these tasks. Staff knew people well and showed understanding and patience when supporting them. Staff understood when other people needed to be involved in the decision making process, so as to act in their best interests.
People were supported to take part in daily living skills, access the local community and were supported to cope with behaviours that caused them anxiety. Staff received the necessary training to support people with these tasks.
Staff supported people to maintain their health and to safely take the medicines that they needed to promote their health and welfare.
Effective systems were in place to recruit and train new staff and to ensure that they had the necessary skills and knowledge to support people on the autistic spectrum. People benefitted from being supported by a staff team who knew their individual needs.
We observed two people in the main lounge, who were both preparing for the day's activities and outings. We noted that two staff members supported these people to prepare for the outing, and communicated clearly with the people, in a polite and respectful manner.