You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 17 November 2018

We conducted an announced comprehensive inspection of Kare Plus Maidstone on 24 September 2018. Kare Plus Maidstone is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults, younger adults and people with dementia, learning disabilities, autism or physical disabilities. At the time of our inspection the service was not supporting anyone with autism or learning disabilities.

On the day of our inspection there were 17 people using the service and everyone received the regulated activity. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

This was the first inspection of this service as the service was registered with CQC on 26 September 2017. A registered manager was 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.

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm and the provider had effective systems in place to manage this. Risks to people were identified, risk assessments were completed and kept up to date. There was enough safely recruited and suitably trained staff to meet people’s assessed needs. There was some feedback from people that calls had been late, however, staff had the time to meet people’s needs. The provider had acted on this feedback and was implementing a new electronic care system to improve the monitoring of late or missed calls. People were supported with their medicines safely and protected from the risk of infection. Accidents and incidents had been monitored and analysed; and lessons were learnt from these.

People's needs assessments were kept up to date and reflected in people's care records. There was clear guidance for staff on how to support people with their needs in the way the person wanted. People's individual protected characteristics, such as their sexuality or disability were considered during needs assessments and within peoples care plans. People were supported to live healthily and access healthcare. 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.

People were treated with kindness and staff were caring and respectful. The service had received positive feedback from other health professionals, relatives, staff and people. There was a person-centred culture and the managers and staff knew the people they cared for well. People and relatives were involved with their care and staff respected people's need for privacy and dignity. Confidential information was kept secure and people’s independence was promoted.

People received personalised care which was responsive to their needs. Care plans and assessments were kept up to date, were detailed and person centred and recorded what was important to the person. People were involved in their reviews, along with their relatives. People could raise any concerns or complaints they had. The complaints procedure was available to people and complaints were managed appropriately. People’s end of life wishes, where known, were recorded and reflected well in people’s care records.

People, relatives and staff were engaged in the service and the registered manager had acted on feedback received from people and their relatives. The provider had systems in place to promote continuous learning and acted to make improvements. The provider had good oversight of the quality and safety of the service and risks. Regulatory requirements were understood an

Inspection areas



Updated 17 November 2018

The service was safe.

Systems were in place to protect people from abuse.

Risks assessments were completed to keep people safe.

There were enough suitable and safely recruited staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.

Medicines were administered safely.

People were protected from the prevention and control of infection.

Learning from accidents and incidents was evident.



Updated 17 November 2018

The service was effective.

Assessed needs were reflected in people�s care plans and kept up to date.

Staff had received the right training and support to fulfil their roles.

People were supported to access healthcare services.

Consent to care was sought and people were supported in the least restrictive way possible.



Updated 17 November 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion.

People�s needs around equality and diversity were considered.

People and their relatives were engaged with the service and were involved in decisions about their care.

Staff understood and respected people�s privacy and dignity and promoted their independence.



Updated 17 November 2018

The service was responsive.

People�s care plans were person centred, looked at their likes and dislikes, what was important to them and were kept up to date.

People and relatives could complain and the provider acted on feedback they received.

People�s wishes regarding the end of their life, where known, were included in their care records.



Updated 17 November 2018

The service was well-led.

A positive, person centred culture of continuous learning was promoted by the management team.

Systems were in place to ensure that quality, performance and risks were managed effectively.

The views of people, relatives and staff had been actively sought.

Staff worked in partnership with a range of healthcare professionals to meet people�s needs.

The provider kept up to date with best practice and supported their local community.