You are here

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 February 2017

We carried out an announced inspection of the service on 25 October 2016. Crossroads Care Kent is a domiciliary care service which provides personal care and support for carers who support people in their own home.

There was a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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.

People felt safe and were supported by staff who were trained in how to keep people safe. Risks to people’s health and safety were managed. Plans were in place to identify and reduce the risk to people’s safety. Care plans contained sufficient information to support staff to minimise the risks. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s care needs and staff were recruited safely. People received the level of support they required to safely manage their medicines.

People were supported by staff who received appropriate induction, training, supervision and a yearly appraisal. Staff were fully supported by management. People’s rights were protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People received the assistance they required to have enough to eat and drink. External professionals were involved in people’s care as appropriate.

People were treated with kindness and compassion by the staff. Relatives reported positive and caring relationships were made with them and the people they cared for. Staff were respectful and spoke in a calm way. People and their families felt able to contribute to decisions about the care and relatives were involved in the planning and reviewing of their family members care and how they wanted their care delivered. People were treated with dignity and respect by staff who understood the importance of this. Relatives that we spoke with gave many examples of how staff maintained their relations dignity when providing assistance and respected their privacy.

People received the care they needed. The provider was responsive towards people’s health needs. Care records were written in a person-centred way that focused on people’s wishes and respected their views. Care plans provided information for staff so people could receive personalised care. A complaints process was in place, and people felt able to make a complaint and felt staff would respond in a timely manner. Relatives told us that they felt the service was well-led; they had not had any concerns, but knew how to complain and were confident to raise concerns with the service if needed.

The service promoted a positive culture that was person-centred, inclusive and open. People and their relatives described communication with the service as good. Staff felt supported by the management. All staff felt the registered manager was approachable and listened to their views or concerns. People were encouraged to share their experience about the service and feedback on those experiences. There were a number of quality assurance processes in place that regularly assessed the quality and effectiveness of the support provided.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 February 2017

The service was safe.

Staff understood their responsibilities to help protect people from the risk of harm and how to keep people safe.

Risks to people’s health and safety were managed. Plans in place to enable staff to support people safely contained sufficient detail on how to minimise identified risks.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s care needs and staff were recruited safely.

People always received the level of support required to manage their medicines safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 February 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received appropriate induction, training, supervision and a yearly appraisal. People’s rights were protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People received the assistance and support they required to ensure they had enough to eat and drink.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services when they needed them. Referrals were made to healthcare professionals when required.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 February 2017

The service was caring.

Positive and caring relationships had been developed between Relatives, People who were supported and staff.

People and their families or representatives were involved in the planning and reviewing of their care and making decisions about what care they wanted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 February 2017

The service was responsive.

People received the care and support they needed and staff were aware of the different support each person required. Care records provided information for staff to provide personalised care.

A complaints process was in place. People felt able to make a complaint and confident that staff would respond in a timely manner.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 February 2017

The service was well-led.

The provider promoted a positive culture which encouraged people, their relatives and staff to help develop the service.

Staff told us they would be confident raising any concerns with the management and the registered provider was meeting their regulatory responsibilities.

The provider had good leadership with a strong management team. There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Where issues were identified these were responded to.