You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 10 April 2019

About the service: Sittingbourne is a domiciliary care agency which provides domestic care and personal care to people who live in their own home, including people living with dementia and physical disabilities. The agency provides care and support for people in the Faversham, Sittingbourne and Isle of Sheppey areas of Kent. The office is situated in Milton Regis, Sittingbourne. At the time of the inspection 69 people were receiving personal care. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with personal care, where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service:

The service met characteristics of Good in all areas.

People, their relatives and staff told us the quality of care was good and that the service was well managed. Comments included, “The service is very good all round” and “I have been with the service for 10 years and wouldn’t consider changing because it is very reliable and the staff are attentive and helpful”

¿ People felt safe and that staff supported them well, meeting their needs in the way they preferred. One relative said, “[My loved one] knows and trusts the staff so I know they feel safe”.

Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe from harm and knew how to report any concerns.

¿ People spoke with staff about any potential risks to their health and welfare. These were assessed, monitored and regularly reviewed and there was clear guidance for staff to follow about how to make sure people were safe.

¿ People’s needs were assessed and monitored to help promote a good quality of life.

¿ People told us that staff knew them well and were knowledgeable, providing effective care and supporting them to maintain a healthy lifestyle and have access to health care professionals as needed.

¿ People felt empowered to make decisions about their care and support and to maintain control of their lives. Staff supported people to do as much for themselves as they chose or could.

¿ People said staff were kind, compassionate and caring and took their time to carry out their duties and did not rush. They said they had regular staff to provide their support and that they arrived on time. They said, “I am very pleased with the service as it’s reliable and the staff always turn up on time” and “Staff turn up on time and the calls are for the right amount of time”.

¿ People felt respected and that they valued their relationships with the staff.

¿ People told us they received personalised care that was tailored to them and responsive to their needs. Each person had a care plan, which staff followed, that reflected people’s physical, emotional, social and mental health needs. These were available in different formats to make sure the information was accessible.

¿ People knew how to complain but had no complaints. One person told us, “There has been no need to complain as the office staff are helpful and minor issues get sorted out straight away. I have no concerns about the service at all”.

¿ People said the service was well-run and well managed and that they would recommend the service to others. They said staff were willing to ‘go the extra mile’. People and staff felt the registered manager and provider were approachable and listened to them.

¿ The management team continued to complete audits and checks on the quality of the service and continued to look at ways to drive improvements.

Rating at last inspection:

Good (report published May 2017)

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained Good in all areas and Good overall.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.or

Inspection areas



Updated 10 April 2019

The service was safe

Details are in our Safe findings below.



Updated 10 April 2019

The service was effective

Details are in our Effective findings below.



Updated 10 April 2019

The service was caring

Details are in our Caring findings below.



Updated 10 April 2019

The service was responsive

Details are in our Responsive findings below.



Updated 10 April 2019

The service was well-led

Details are in our Well-Led findings below.