Kemfa Services Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment improvements had been made, and the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People and their relatives told us they received care which met their needs and preferences. A family member said, “The staff are very kind and caring, very much so. Sometimes, my [relative] gets sundown syndrome (agitation, confusion, and anxiety, that typically occurs late afternoon and evening) but the staff accommodate the changes well and care for my [relative] with this in mind.”

At the last assessment, care plans were not always person centred and did not fully reflect people’s physical, mental, emotional, and social needs. People’s care plans had been improved to include more detailed information about their needs, risks to their health and wellbeing, daily routine and their preferences. An electronic recording system had been introduced so staff could record their daily notes on an application on their mobile phone detailing what care had been provided. Relatives had access to this information which was password protected. People’s notes were easier to read meaning staff had the necessary information available to care for people effectively. People’s equality characteristics were recorded to inform staff so they could consider these when providing care. Where people’s first language was not English, this was recorded.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People and relatives told us they were receiving care from mainly the same regular staff, so they received continuity of care. A family member said, “There were so many different staff, never the same one. It was raised with the office and since then they have been very good.”

Where a person was supported by more than one service or by unpaid carers, staff worked in a transparent, collaborative, flexible and open way to make sure care was joined up for people. We were given an example of how this worked in practice to support a person to remain in their own home. We saw evidence that the service sought appropriate input from professionals when a person’s needs changed or increased.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to people’s individual needs. People and their relatives and staff were provided with information which was accessible and clear. The registered manager was aware of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) which requires services to provide information and support in accessible ways. Systems were in place which enabled people to either receive information in accessible formats or alternative ways.

Staff were aware of people’s ways of communicating. For example, where people were deaf or hard of hearing, there was directions for staff in how to communicate with them. Where English was not the person’s first language, the support needed was recorded so staff had a clear understanding of their culture and ways to communicate with them whilst providing care and support.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People were listened to and involved in the planning of their care and support. A family member said, “I was involved in developing the care plan, it worked okay.” The registered manager, compliance manager and field care supervisors made regular visits to people’s homes as well as keeping in touch by phone to talk with them and undertake reviews of their care.

Checks on staff competency and observation of their practice were also undertaken with the involvement of people. Compliments and comments from people, relatives and professionals were recorded, passed onto staff and any action needed was taken.

A satisfaction survey was sent to people in July 2025. The survey results were analysed and the outcome shared with people and their relatives. The conclusion was, “The survey results reflect a strong commitment to quality care and service user satisfaction. While the feedback is overwhelmingly positive, the few concerns raised have been addressed, and ongoing improvements are being implemented. Kemfa Services Limited remains dedicated to delivering compassionate, respectful, and person-centred care.”

People could access the care, support and treatment when they needed it. We saw people had been referred to a range of different health professionals, such as GP’s, district nurses, occupational therapy team, dementia team and social services. The registered manager liaised with professionals to ensure people’s care and support was up to date and we saw a range of correspondence which reflected this.

Support was offered to people in a timely manner and, whilst there were sometimes delays, with traffic and emergencies, these were dealt with quickly by back up staff now being available to support people. The service offered flexibility so people could access support when they needed it. For example, to attend appointments. A family member told us, “Sometimes, I have to ring the office to request different care times to accommodate hospital appointments. They are very flexible.” Staff understood people had the right to receive the care and support that met their individual needs. We saw an example of how the service had put flexible arrangements in place for a person to go out when they wanted and the staff worked around this to ensure they had choice and access to things that mattered to them.

The registered manager and staff actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in outcomes and tailored their care and support in response to this.

Overall, people received appropriate care and support at a time which suited their individual needs. The registered manager and staff understood people’s right to equity in accessing care and support. They told us, “I know only too well how people can be treated differently because of their culture, race, language, and gender. We will make sure this doesn’t happen in Kemfa Services as we all have a responsibility to challenge and address inequality in whatever form.” People were treated fairly and had not experienced any discrimination or unfair treatment.

There was a culture where staff challenged inequalities and sought to find solutions to the barriers people faced. A staff member said, “We do have people from different cultures and different backgrounds and all staff receive equality and diversity training. We also call people asking specific questions about this area to check staff are treating people respectfully. We have not had any concerns to my knowledge.”

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People’s care plans included a section for documenting information and discussions around making informed decisions about their future, including their end of their life wishes. The registered manager told us, “We always touch on people’s wishes about end-of-life care at the initial assessment, but most people are not really keen to discuss this at this stage.” We saw it was recorded where this had been discussed but no decisions had been made at this time. It was documented if a person had a ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) in place and if they had a representative such as a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) who could act on their behalf.

No-one using the service at the time of our assessment needed support with end-of-life care. Staff were in the process of completing online end of life training and the registered manager had recently completed a Train the Trainer course with the plan to cascade information and learning about end-of-life care to the rest of team during team meetings in October and November 2025.