- Homecare service
Austen Allen Homecare - Dartford Also known as Austen Allen Homecare
Assessment report published 2 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
About the service
Austen Allen Homecare – Dartford is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care and support to people living in their own homes.
Who the service is for
Austen Allen Homecare – Dartford provides support to older adults, people living with dementia, people with physical disabilities and people living with sensory impairments.
At the time of the assessment, the service was supporting 48 people with the regulated activity of personal care.
Key findings
We carried out this assessment between 23 September to 29 September 2026. We visited the office on 24 September 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
The service had systems in place to safeguard people from abuse and avoidable harm.
Staff understood safeguarding responsibilities and managers monitored safeguarding concerns, incidents and complaints through regular audits.
Records demonstrated concerns were reported appropriately, investigated and acted upon. Where safeguarding concerns were raised, the provider worked with local authorities, healthcare professionals and other agencies to investigate concerns and reduce future risk. Staff understood incident reporting procedures and told us they would escalate concerns appropriately and seek emergency assistance where required.
Risks to people were assessed and managed. Risk assessments reflected people's individual circumstances and addressed areas such as mobility, skin integrity, nutrition, medicines, behaviour and health conditions. Staff understood people's risks and were able to describe how they supported people safely whilst promoting independence. We identified some risk assessments would benefit from greater clarity and consistency. However, we found no evidence this had impacted on people's care.
People received support from staff who had undertaken mandatory and role-specific training. Training compliance was monitored through regular audits, management reviews and competency processes. Where training became overdue, managers took action, including reminders, supervision, additional support and, where appropriate, restricting staff from working until training requirements were met. Staff told us they received the training they needed to carry out their roles safely and effectively.
Medicines were managed safely. The provider completed regular medication audits and demonstrated oversight of medication administration, documentation and stock management. Where medication concerns were identified, managers investigated incidents, completed competency reviews, provided supervision and implemented learning to reduce the likelihood of recurrence. Whilst audits identified recurring medication recording and documentation issues, we found evidence these were recognised by the provider and actively monitored through governance processes. We did not identify evidence that these issues had resulted in widespread poor outcomes for people.
Care plans were person-centred and provided guidance regarding how people wished to be supported. Records reflected people's communication needs, preferences, routines, goals and outcomes. Care plans promoted independence and reflected what people could do for themselves alongside areas where support was required. We identified opportunities to improve the quality and consistency of some documentation. This included overly lengthy care plans, repeated wording, generic risk mitigation statements and some inconsistencies within Mental Capacity Act records and consent documentation. The provider had already identified many of these themes through its own improvement planning and governance processes.
We checked and found that staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions and had choice, control and freedom over their lives.
The service had systems in place to monitor quality and safety. Audits reviewed medicines, accidents, incidents, complaints and safeguarding concerns. Records demonstrated managers identified issues, investigated concerns, analysed trends and implemented learning. We saw evidence of safeguarding concerns being identified and raised by the provider where appropriate. Managers monitored incidents and safeguarding activity to identify learning and improvement opportunities.
Staff spoke positively about the culture of the service and consistently described managers as approachable, supportive and responsive. Staff told us they felt able to raise concerns and were confident action would be taken. Staff described receiving regular supervision, spot checks and support from managers. They told us they had enough time to support people and could access additional guidance from office staff and managers when required.
People's experience of this service
People continued to receive safe, caring and person-centred support from staff who knew them well and understood what mattered to them. People and relatives consistently told us staff treated them with kindness, dignity and respect and supported them to maintain their independence. One person said, “I can't praise them highly enough. They're second to none”, whilst others described staff as “always kind and caring” and “always gentle and kind.” Relatives told us staff knew their family members well and understood their preferences, routines and individual needs.
People told us staff encouraged them to remain as independent as possible. Comments included, “They let me do what I can for myself” and “They know me well, what I can do for myself.” Care records reflected people's preferences, routines and communication needs and showed staff were provided with information to support people in ways that mattered to them.
People and relatives described positive relationships with care staff and said they generally felt safe receiving support. Many people told us staff were reliable, responsive and respectful. People also told us they felt able to contact the office if they needed support and relatives said managers and office staff responded appropriately when concerns were raised.
A small number of people raised concerns regarding call times or individual members of staff. We saw evidence these concerns were investigated and followed up through supervision, monitoring, care reviews and discussions with people and their families.
People told us improvements were made when concerns were raised and some people described positive changes after speaking with the provider.