• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Kent Enablement at Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

St Peter's House, Dane Valley Road, Broadstairs, Kent, CT10 3JJ 0300 041 1480

Provided and run by:
Kent County Council

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 30 November 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection team consisted of one inspector and two Experts by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided. The service had also recruited another manager who was in the process of registering with CQC.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection. We also needed to make arrangements to contact people for feedback.

Inspection activity started on 6 November 2019 and ended on 7 November 2019. We visited the office location on 6 November 2019.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority. The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with 26 people who used the service and 10 relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with seven members of staff including an operations manager, locality organisers, a supervisor and enablement support workers. We also spoke with a health and social care professional involved with the service.

We reviewed a range of records. This included three people’s care records. We looked at two staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including quality assurance surveys and meeting minutes were reviewed.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 30 November 2019

About the service

Kent Enablement at Home provides short term care to adults and older people, including those discharged from hospital. The service generally supports between 100 and 140 people at any one time. The service was split into two areas and each area had its own team led by a locality organiser. On the day of our inspection 109 people were using the service.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People told us they felt safe. People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm and risks to people were managed. The management team promoted an open culture to encourage staff to raise any concerns.

The service was rated requires improvement in safe at their last inspection as some staff pre-employment checks had not been completed. At this inspection we found staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff to meet the needs of people. People received all their scheduled visits and staff stayed for as long as the person needed. Medicines were managed safely and there was learning from accidents and incidents.

People's needs were assessed, monitored and reviewed to ensure their needs were met. People were supported by competent, knowledgeable and well-trained staff. Staff were supported by the management team.

Where required people were supported to ensure their dietary needs and preferences were met. Staff worked closely with occupational therapists and other agencies to assess people’s needs and ensure people were supported with their enablement.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People and relatives were happy with the care they received and were highly positive about the service and its staff. People’s equality and diversity needs were respected, and they were involved in decisions about their care. People’s privacy, dignity and independence was promoted by staff.

Care was person centred and had good outcomes for people. Over 55% of people who used the service were enabled back to independence and had no on-going care needs. People were supported with their communication needs. People were supported to develop meaningful activities and to avoid becoming socially isolated. Feedback about the service was very good but people could complain if they needed to.

There was a caring and open culture in the service. People, relatives and staff were all positive about the management team and the service provided. The governance framework had ensured the delivery of high quality and safe care. Feedback was analysed and used to make improvements to the service.

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

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 15 March 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

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