You are here

L'Arche Kent Faith House Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 11 May 2018

L’Arche Faith House is a service for up to five people with learning disabilities and autism. The service is a in a residential area of Canterbury. There is a main house where four people live and an annexe for one person to live with support. L’Arche is a Christian based charity that supports people of all faiths and none in their services. There were five people living at the service when we inspected.

L’Arche Faith House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

L’Arche Kent Faith House provides accommodation and personal care. The philosophy of L’Arche is that people with disabilities live in a community. Therefore, some staff members also live in the home. The accommodation is over two floors, with some bedrooms on the ground floor and some upstairs. There is a communal lounge and a large dining room/activities room and a garden to the rear of the home. L’Arche Kent Faith House was previously registered with a different address and was rated as Require Improvement in December 2015.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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.

Quality monitoring systems had not consistently brought about prompt changes to practice where risks had been identified. We found that some temperature checks had not taken place as per the registered provider’s procedures and some food left in the fridge was out of date. The issue of meat temperatures not being recorded had been highlighted in an audit but prompt action had not been taken to check shortfalls had been corrected.

People were kept safe from abuse and harm and staff knew how to report suspicions around abuse. There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people’s needs and ensure their safety.

People received their medicines when they needed them from staff who had been trained and competency checked. Staff understood the best practice procedures for reducing the risk of infection; and audits were carried out to ensure the environment was clean and safe. The service used incidents, accidents and near misses to learn from mistakes and drive improvements.

People had effective assessments prior to a service being offered. This meant that care outcomes were planned for and staff understood what support each person required. Staff were trained in key areas and had the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles. Staff had been supervised effectively by their manager and their performance appraised. People were supported to receive enough to eat and drink and staff used nationally recognised guidance to ensure people had a balanced diet.

The service worked in collaboration with other professionals such as psychologists and people’s GPs to ensure care was effectively delivered. People maintained good health and had access to health and social care professionals. Environments were risk assessed to ensure people were safe and met people’s individual needs.

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. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act were being complied with

Inspection areas



Updated 11 May 2018

The service was safe.

Staff were aware of their role and responsibilities in relation to safeguarding people.

Risks had been managed safely and had been mitigated by effective assessments.

There were enough staff deployed to meet people�s needs and they had been recruited safely.

People�s medicines were managed safely and people had medicines when they needed them.

Staff understood the importance of infection control measures and supported people in a way that protected them from infection.

Lessons were learned and improvements made as a result.



Updated 11 May 2018

The service was effective.

People�s needs were met in line with best practice and legislation.

Staff had the training and support required to carry out their roles.

People were supported to have a balanced diet which met their needs.

People were supported to access medical professionals as required and any advice was followed.

Staff used a range of systems which promoted effective communication and ensured people�s needs were met.

The premises were well maintained and met people�s needs.

Staff asked for consent for people before supporting them and understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. (2005)



Updated 11 May 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who knew them well and treated them with kindness and compassion.

Staff used a variety of communication tools to support people to express their views.

People were supported in a way which promoted their dignity and privacy.



Updated 11 May 2018

People�s needs were assessed, recorded and reviewed.

People received personalised care and were included in decisions about their care and support.

A complaints policy and procedure was in place and available to people.


Requires improvement

Updated 11 May 2018

The service was not consistently well-led.

Systems for assessing, monitoring and developing the quality of the service had not resulted in prompt changes to mitigate risks.

There was an open culture where staff were kept informed and able to suggest ideas to improve the service.

Staff, people and their relatives had been involved in the running of the service.

The service continuously learned and improved, and implemented positive changes.

The service worked effectively in partnership with other agencies.