You are here


Inspection carried out on 5 March 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service:

Kids West Midlands is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to children and young adults with physical and or learning disabilities or life limiting health conditions in their own home. At the time of inspection four people were using the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

Relatives told us they felt the service was safe. They trusted the workers who supported the children and young adults. They thought there were enough staff to provide safe care to people. Relatives said staff were kind, caring and supportive of people and their families. Privacy and dignity were respected and people’s independence was promoted.


The service assisted people, where required, in meeting their health care and nutritional needs. Staff worked together, and with other professionals, in co-ordinating people’s care.

Staff had received training about safeguarding and knew how to respond to any allegation of abuse. There were other opportunities for staff to receive training to meet people’s care needs. A system was in place for staff to receive supervision and appraisal and there were appropriate recruitment processes being used when staff were employed.

Staff had a good understanding and knowledge of people’s care and support needs. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported. They were supported to develop and follow their interests. Risks were assessed and managed. Positive risk taking was encouraged as people were supported to take acceptable risks to help promote their independence.

People were involved in decisions about their care. They 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 supported this practice. Information was accessible to involve people in making decisions about their lives.

Communication was effective and staff and people were listened to. Staff said they felt well-supported and were aware of their rights and their responsibility to share any concerns about the care provided.

There were opportunities for people, relatives and staff to give their views about the service. Processes were in place to manage and respond to complaints and concerns. The provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided.

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection the service was rated good (10 August 2016.)

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection to check that this service remained good.

Follow up:

We did not identify any concerns at this inspection. We will therefore re-inspect this service within the published timeframe for services rated good. We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Inspection carried out on 22 June 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 22 June 2016. This was an announced inspection.

At the time of our last inspection in April 2014, KIDS (West Midlands) was found to be meeting all of the essential standards relating to the quality and safety of care.

KIDS (West Midlands) is a small domiciliary care agency that provides support and personal care to children and young adults with physical and/or learning disabilities and their families in their own homes.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 service was safe because people were protected from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm and staff were aware of the processes they needed to follow. People were also supported by enough members of staff who took the time to get to know them. We also found that where required, people were supported to have their medicines as prescribed.

The service was effective because people received care from staff who had received adequate training and had the knowledge and skills they required to do their job effectively. People received care and support with their consent, where possible, and people’s rights were protected because key processes had been fully followed to ensure people were not unlawfully restricted.

People’s dietary needs were assessed and monitored to identify any risks associated with nutrition and hydration and they had food they enjoyed. People were also supported to maintain good health because staff worked closely with other health and social care professionals when necessary.

The service was caring because people were supported by staff that were kind and caring. People received the care they wanted based on their personal preferences, likes and dislikes because staff were dedicated and committed to getting to know people well. People were also cared for by staff who protected their privacy and dignity and respected them as individuals. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and were supported to express their views in all aspects of their lives including the care and support that was provided to them, as far as reasonably possible.

The service was responsive because people and their relatives felt involved in the planning and review of their care because staff communicated with them in ways they could understand. People were also encouraged to offer feedback on the quality of the service and knew how to complain.

People were actively encouraged and supported by staff to engage in activities that they enjoyed and the provider ensured that the entire family were involved and received the care and support they needed.

The service was consistently well led because the registered manager had quality monitoring processes in place to identify and address areas for improvement. Staff felt supported and appreciated in their work and reported KIDS (West Midlands) to have an open and honest leadership culture.

Inspection carried out on 1 April 2014

During a routine inspection

The inspection was completed by one inspector. We visited KIDS (West Midlands) office and carried out an inspection there. We looked at information to help us gather evidence about the quality of the agency's work with children and families that they supported. On the day of our inspection, the registered manager told us that seven children were being supported.

We spoke with the registered manager and two members of staff. We also contacted three parents of children and had telephone conversations with them to help us answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? and, Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our findings during the inspection, speaking with parents of children using the service, staff members supporting them and from looking at records.

The detailed evidence supporting our summary can be read in our full report.

Is the service safe?

Parents told us that they felt their children were safe with the staff members. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff spoken with showed that they understood their role in safeguarding children they supported from the risk of harm or abuse. This meant that children were protected from harm.

There was a system in place to record accidents and incidents. Staff spoken with showed that they were aware of the reporting system. There had been no reported accidents. There was a system in place to handle concerns and complaints. The registered manager told us that no complaints had been received by the provider since our last inspection in May 2013.

Recruitment practices were safe and thorough and ensured that people employed by the provider were suitable for working with children.

Is the service effective?

The provider's information guide gave parents details of a local advocacy service. KIDS (West Midlands) can support children to seek assistance, support and advocacy services.

Children's care and support needs were assessed and their parents were involved in their plan of care. Parents told us that they were asked and involved in planning care and support sessions. Parents also told us that they had been asked for information about their child's likes and dislikes and we saw that this was in the child's care plan.

Health information was detailed so that staff had the information they needed to support people safely.

Is the service caring?

Parents we spoke with told us that they thought staff were kind and caring. One parent told us, "I could not manage without them." Another parent told us, "We've had the same staff member for several years, we trust them."

Parents of children using the service were asked for feedback about he service when reviews were completed and when spot-checks were completed on staff. Plans were also in place to send out a feedback survey to parents. Where concerns or further needs were identified these were addressed.

Is the service responsive?

All of the parents spoken with told us they had no concerns or complaints. One parent told us, "I think they are a marvellous organisation."

Is the service well led?

We saw documented evidence that showed that the service worked well with other agencies such as social services, health professionals and schools that were also involved in the child's care and support.

The service had a quality assurance system. Effective spot checks were completed on staff. Records seen showed that the registered manager identified areas that needed improvement and we saw action was taken when needed.

Staff spoken with were clear about their roles and responsibilities. This helped to ensure that children and families received a good quality service at all times.

Inspection carried out on 28 May 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spoke with the manager. Following our inspection we spoke with the care manager and two members of care staff. We also spoke with three people using the service and / or their relative.

People's privacy and dignity were respected. One person told us, "The staff member talks to me kindly".

Relatives told us that they were involved in planning care and support for their children. One relative told us, "I feel KIDS is a positive organisation, they involve us as a family in planning care".

People were protected from the risk of harm. Safeguarding procedures were in place so that staff would recognise and report any allegations of abuse.

Staff were trained and supported in their roles. This meant that they had the skills and knowledge needed for their job role. One staff member told us, "I enjoy my job".

Systems were in place to audit the quality of the service provided but we found there were gaps in audits which meant the systems was not effective.

Records were not always well maintained or easily accessible. This meant that we could not look at some records we wished to.

Inspection carried out on 4 February 2013

During a routine inspection

As part of our inspection we spoke with three people and / or their relatives. We also spoke with the manager, the chief executive officer, the care co-ordinator and three other members of staff.

Relatives told us that they were involved in planning care and support for their child. One relative said, "Being involved enables me to tell the staff member details about my child's needs".

Records were not available to show us whether people received the care and support to meet their identified needs. However, one young person told us, "I like my worker (staff member)" and their relative told us, "I feel that my child's support meets their needs".

Systems were not always in place to protect people from harm. Staff were not always trained and were not supervised to ensure good care and support was provided.

There were no systems in place for auditing procedures and monitoring the quality of the service provided, so that support provided continuously improved.

Records were not well maintained and not easily accessible so that the support people received could not be looked at.