You are here

Curant Care Maidstone Requires improvement

Reports


Inspection carried out on 9 June 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

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 carried out on 24 September 2018

During a routine inspection

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