You are here

Kinder Home Care Services Good

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 10 October 2018

This inspection took place on the 3 and 8 August 2018. This was the first comprehensive inspection of Kinder Home Care Services at their location In Kettering since the regulated activity of ‘personal care’ was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Kinder Home Care Services provides a domiciliary care support service to people living within their own homes in the community in Kettering and surrounding villages. There were 17 people receiving support when we inspected.

A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 received care from staff that had received the right training and support to do the job. People benefitted from a service that was appropriately managed so that they received their service in a timely and reliable way. They received care from staff that were friendly, compassionate, kind and caring.

Staff recruitment procedures ensured that appropriate pre-employment checks were completed to ensure only suitable staff worked at the service. There were sufficient numbers of staff to provide people with the support that had been agreed with them.

People’s needs had been assessed prior their service being agreed. There were plans of care in place that been developed to guide staff in providing care in partnership with people who used the service. Their care records contained risk assessments and risk management plans to mitigate the risks to people. These plans provided staff with guidance and information they needed on how to minimise the identified risks. There were procedures in place to guide staff when supporting people to take their medicines.

Staff were trained in infection control, and supplied with appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), such as disposable gloves and aprons, to perform their roles safely.

Staff were responsive to people’s changing needs. Staff could demonstrate that they understood what was required of them to provide people with the care they needed to remain living independently in their local community.

People were happy with the way that staff provided their care and support. They said were listened to, their views were acknowledged and acted upon and their care and support was delivered in accordance with their assessed needs and their preferences for how they wished to receive their care.

People's consent was sought before any care was provided and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were met. 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 place at the service supported this practice.

Staff had a good understanding of what safeguarding meant and the procedures for reporting abuse. The staff we spoke with were confident that any concerns they raised would be followed up appropriately by the registered manager or other senior staff.

People were cared for by staff that had access to the support, supervision, and training they needed to work effectively in their roles. There was good leadership regarding day-to-day and longer-term management of the service.

There was an effective system of quality assurance in place which ensured people consistently received a good standard of care and support. Arrangements were in place for the service to reflect and learn from complaints and incidents to improve safety across the service.

The provider worked in partnership with other agencies and commissioners to ensure that where improvements were needed action was taken. Communication was open and honest, and any improvements identified were worked upon as required.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 10 October 2018

The service was safe.

People were protected from unsafe care. Risk assessments were in place and managed in a way that ensured people received safe support.

People received care from competent staff that had the appropriate training and experience.

People benefitted from receiving care from staff that were mindful of their responsibilities to safeguard them from harm.

Effective

Good

Updated 10 October 2018

The service was effective.

People received personalised care and support. They were provided with the care they needed and this was regularly reviewed to ensure their needs continued to be met.

As part of an agreed care plan people were supported to eat and drink enough. People were actively involved in decisions about their care and support needs.

People received a flexible and reliable service. There were contingency arrangements in place to ensure the continuity of the service when staff were sick or on holiday.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 October 2018

The service was caring.

People received their service from staff that were conscientious, compassionate, and committed to providing good standards of care.

People benefitted from receiving care from staff that respected their individuality.

People's dignity was assured when they received care and their privacy was respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 October 2018

The service was responsive.

People's care plans were person centred to reflect their individuality and their care needs. Their care needs had been assessed prior to an agreed service being provided.

People�s needs were regularly reviewed with them so that the agreed service continued to meet their needs and expectations.

People were assured that appropriate and timely action would be taken if they had to complain about the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 10 October 2018

The service was well-led.

There was a culture of openness and transparency; staff were encouraged and supported by the registered manager to consistently provide a good standard of person-centred care.

People benefitted from receiving a service that was well organised daily as well as long-term.

People's quality of care was monitored by the systems in place and timely action was taken to make improvements when necessary.