We carried out a review of the data available to us about SeeAbility - Kent Support Service on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about SeeAbility - Kent Support Service, you can give feedback on this service.
This was SeeAbility Kent Support Service first inspection since it re-registered following a change of address on 12 August 2016.
The service had 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.
Staff had good knowledge of safeguarding adults and knew what actions to take if they suspected abuse was taking place. The provider had carried out appropriate employment checks to ensure that staff were safe to work with people at the home. There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to keep people safe. The provider gave staff appropriate training to meet the needs of people. Staff received one to one supervision and appraisals from the registered manager.
People's needs had been assessed and detailed care plans developed. Care plans contained risk
assessments for daily living needs that were personalised for the people staff supported. People’s food preferences were taken into account and those that required support to eat were supported.
Medicines were stored securely and safely administered by staff who had received appropriate training to do so. People were being referred to health professionals when needed. People’s records showed that appropriate referrals were being made to GP’s, speech and language therapists, dentists and chiropodists.
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 supported this practice. Mental capacity assessments were being carried out and these were decision specific. Staff and the registered manager demonstrated a good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Relatives spoke positively about staff. Staff communicated with people in ways that were understood when providing support. People’s private information was stored securely and discussions about people’s personal needs took place in a private area where it could not be overheard. People were free to choose how they lived their lives. People could choose what activities they took part in, that were reflecting their personal interests.
The provider had ensured that there were effective processes in place to fully investigate any complaints. Records showed that outcomes of the investigations were communicated to relevant people. People were empowered to manage any personal disputes they had. People and their relatives were encouraged to give feedback through resident meetings and yearly surveys. The provider had ensured that there were quality-monitoring systems in place to identify any shortfalls and the registered manager acted on these appropriately.
Relatives and staff spoke positively about the registered manager. The registered manager had an open door policy that was used by staff and people living at the service. The registered manager was approachable and supportive and took an active role in the day-to-day running of the service. Staff were able to discuss concerns with the registered manager at any time and had confidence appropriate action would be taken. The registered manager was open, transparent and responded positively to any concerns or suggestions made about the service. The registered manager was informing the CQC of all notifiable events detailed in the regulations.