You are here

L'Arche Kent The Rainbow Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 7 September 2017

This inspection took place on 30 June 2017 and was unannounced.

L’Arche Kent The Rainbow is home for six adults with learning disabilities. It is part of a community run by L’Arche Kent, a charitable organisation. The home is a detached property in the city of Canterbury. Each person had their own bedroom decorated in the way they chose. One bedroom was on the ground floor and the other bedrooms were on the first floor. There were two lounges, a dining room, kitchen and an enclosed garden at the back that everyone had access to. The philosophy of L’Arche is that people with and without disabilities live together in a community, so some of the staff, called assistants also lived in the service and other staff worked different shifts.

The service was overseen by a registered manager with a team leader in day to day charge. 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.

At our last inspection in November 2015, the service was in breach of two of the regulations and was rated ‘Requires Improvement’. We issued requirement notices to make sure risk assessments were relevant and gave staff up to date guidance, to make sure the monitoring and auditing processes picked up inaccurate and out dated records, and to put a visitors’ book in place to make sure there was a record of who was in the building in the event of an emergency.

The registered manager sent us an action plan outlining how they would rectify those breaches. The registered manager and team had completed all the actions on the action plan and at this inspection all the regulations were met.

The registered manager had reviewed the audits system so that it was more effective. Regular checks of the environment had been carried out and there was a system of checking that records were up to date including: risk assessments, care plans, staff files, medication records and other records.

Plans were in place so if an emergency happened, like a fire, everyone knew what to do. Safety checks were carried out regularly throughout the building and all equipment was checked to make sure it was in good working order and safe to use. The visitors’ book was in place and a record was kept of when people were in the service and this was checked regularly.

There were effective systems in place to make sure people were supported to keep safe without being restricted. Risk assessments had been carried out and written up. Risk assessments were clear and detailed so that staff had the guidance necessary to protect people as far as possible from accidents or harm whilst still encouraging independence.

People looked comfortable in the company of staff and each other and expressed that they felt safe living at the service. There were clear processes in place to safeguard people and for staff to blow the whistle. The registered manager, team leader and staff acted promptly and appropriately if there were any concerns. Staff knew how to recognise and report potential abuse outside the organisation if necessary.

Potential staff were thoroughly vetted to make sure they were safe to support people. People had the time they needed to get to know potential staff before they were able to offer any support or work in the service. There were always plenty of staff in the service to support people and the registered manager kept staffing numbers under review.

Staff were enthusiastic in their roles and had received training to make sure they had the necessary skills to support people and provided person centred care. Each person had a care plan and a health action plan and these were kept up to date to give staff the guidance they needed to make sure people’s individual needs were met.

The Care Quality Commis

Inspection areas



Updated 7 September 2017

The service was safe.

Risk assessments were designed so that people could try out different experiences in the least restrictive way possible whilst protecting them from avoidable harm.

There were safe systems in the service so that people knew how to respond in an emergency.

People were protected from abuse. There was a warm culture of openness and support.

Staffing levels were flexible and determined by people�s needs.

Safety checks and a thorough recruitment procedure ensured people were only supported by staff that had been considered suitable and safe to work with them.

People were supported to take their medicines safely.



Updated 7 September 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received the training they needed to have the skills and knowledge to support people and understand their needs.

Staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were given the support they needed to make day to day decisions and important decisions about their lifestyle, health and wellbeing.

People were supported to have an active and healthy lifestyle.

Mealtimes were social occasions and people were supported to eat a healthy varied diet of home cooked food and drink.



Updated 7 September 2017

The service was caring.

The registered manager and staff were committed to a strong person centred culture.

People had positive relationships with staff that were based on respect and shared interests.

Staff took time to listen to people and gave them the communication aids they needed, so that they could make choices and decisions about their care.

Staff promoted people�s independence and encouraged them to do as much for themselves as they were able to make a positive difference to their lives.



Updated 7 September 2017

The service was responsive.

People received the care and support they needed to meet their individual needs. The service was flexible and responded quickly to people�s changing needs or wishes.

People were able to undertake daily activities that they had chosen and wanted to participate in. People had opportunities to be part of the local community.

People could raise concerns and complaints and trusted that the staff would listen to them and they would work together to resolve them.



Updated 7 September 2017

The service was well led.

The registered manager and staff were committed to providing a strong person centred culture.

The registered manager was experienced and qualified to manage the service and was available to support people, the team leader and staff.

People�s views and interests were taken into account in the running of the service. The service had a development plan that everyone was involved in and was based on their feedback.