You are here

Curant Care Maidstone Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 24 August 2021

About the service

Curant Care Maidstone is a domiciliary care service providing personal care to 43 younger adults with physical disabilities and adults aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. When we attended the office to inspect, the service was known as Kare Plus Maidstone. Shortly after the inspection the service changed their name to Curant Care Maidstone.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People and relatives had mixed views about the service. Some relatives shared positive experiences, and some had negative experiences. Comments included, “It’s all brilliant. Without them we would be lost”; “It is all running ok now after those problems in December”; “Very happy with the care and support” and “Carers are very thoughtful, I am so pleased with the care. One improvement though would be to notify me of anything such as if a carer is held up.”

Risks to people's safety had not always been identified. Risk assessments did not have all the information staff needed to keep people safe. Medicines management was poor. The provider could not be assured that people had received their medicines as prescribed.

Accidents and incidents had not been appropriately recorded, this meant the provider had not taken action when accidents had occurred.

Care plans included people’s individual preferences and interests and personal history. Care plans provided information about what staff should do in each care visit to meet each person’s basic needs but did not provide enough information to meet additional needs such as catheter care, choking and diabetes. The provider was unable to demonstrate that people had received the care they were scheduled to receive.

When people’s needs had changed their assessments and support plans had not always been updated and amended to detail their current assessed needs. Support plans and supporting documentation were not always individualised and person centred. Which meant that people may receive care and support which did not meet their needs.

The service was not always well led. The provider had not carried out the appropriate checks to ensure that the quality of the service was maintained. The provider had failed to identify issues relating to risk assessment, staff recruitment, staff deployment, medicines management, recording and care planning we had identified. The provider had not always notified us of incidents relating to the service. These notifications tell us about any important events that had happened in the service.

People's views and opinions were not always listened to. People had been given opportunities to provide feedback about the service. Surveys and feedback evidenced that people had been surveyed in February 2021. The provider had not made any improvements to the service to act on people’s feedback. People and relatives told us they did not know who was running the service. The provider had not communicated with people and relatives regarding staffing changes.

Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse. Staff described what abuse meant and told us how they would respond and report if they witnessed anything untoward.

The provider had not maintained complaints records. The provider had not followed their own complaints processes when responding to complaints that had been received.

There were suitable numbers of staff on shift to meet people's needs when we inspected, however there had been issues where in recent weeks where there had been missed and late care visits. The provider had identified this and made some improvements. Staff did not always have enough time allocated to them to travel between care calls. Staff had not always been safely recruited, the provider had not ensu

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 24 August 2021

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 24 August 2021



Updated 24 August 2021


Requires improvement

Updated 24 August 2021

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 24 August 2021

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.