Archived: Curant Care Maidstone

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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to how they manage complaints and person-centred care.

This service scored 29 (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 did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choicesand they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevantchanges in people’s needs.

People told us they were involved in reviews regarding their care. One person said, “When they come round and do the review they ask if I’m happy and if there is anything else I want to add. I recently changed a few things.” However, people’s care plans were not being kept up to date. For example, there were risks which were not included in people’s care plans. Feedback from people was mixed. One person told us, “I’ve got certain carers coming in and not doing half the work.” However, other people told us they did feel well cared for. One person said, “They do everything that’s supposed to be done, I’ve no problems with them not doing the job properly.”

There were significant shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and careneeds of people and their local communities, so care was not joined-up, flexible or supportive ofchoice and continuity.

People’s experiences were mixed. Most people felt well supported by regular staff. However, when staff changed people’s experience was not always positive and poor care plans meant new staff would not always have the information, they needed to support people. People were not supported in an equitable way as there was inconsistency in staff practice and performance. A relative said, “If they’ve never been there before, [my relative] knows who they are, it’s the fact I’ve got to watch and make sure they know things.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People were generally happy with the information they were provided and knew how to interact with the service as needed. For example, people know how to complain and who to contact if they needed to make changes to their care.

Care plans did include information on how people communicated such as if people were able to communicate verbally. However, there were areas where more information was needed such as if people needed larger print text so they could read their own care plan.

The provider did have routes through which people could complain. However, complaints were not always recorded meaning staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. We were not assured the system in place to monitor, investigate and respond to complete was operating effectively.

Records of complaint reviewed during the inspection visit showed there had been 2 complaints recorded in the previous 12 months prior and both acted upon. However, following the visit people told us they had raised complaints with the service. There was no record of these complaints, and some people told us they felt their complaint was not acted on. One person told us they had recently complained because late care calls in the morning were ‘happening all the time.’ They also told us they’d had to complain twice about a carer to feel listened too. Another person told us the service didn’t have enough staff. When we asked if they’d complained they told us, “I do tell them and they are aware, they just apologise and say there’s nothing they can do, they haven’t got the staff.”

The provider did not make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment theyneeded when they needed it. People had differing experiences of how easy it was to contact the office when they needed to. We received mixed feedback about contacting out of hours. One person told us, “In the evenings and on weekends it can be tricky to get through to someone who knows what they’re really doing. If there’s no one in the office, the on-call people vary, sometimes I feel have I got the message through or not?” Another person told us they would message the service, and someone would get back to them.

Staff and leaders did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this. People’s experience was not equitable. Feedback from people showed different people have very different experiences and outcomes. One person told us, “I don’t think what I asked them to do gets acted on, like just a phone call to say someone will turn up or they’re running late, just to be informed would be nice, sometimes you don’t get the phone call and look at the clock, …and it’s been that late without a call.” Other people and relatives felt the opposite and told us, “They are open to your comments, they seem to understand [my relative] incredibly well.”

People were not 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.

There were no end-of-life care plans in place and no evidence the provider had offered people the opportunity to have these discussions. We raised this with the manager who told us plans were put in place when people reached the end of life. However, this could limit people’s opportunity to express their views if they became unwell suddenly.

Where people had a decision recorded not to be resuscitated if this was required to sustain life, this was stated in the person’s care plan. The care plan guided staff to include where the resuscitation plan was kept. However, this was not always filled in to ensure staff could locate the plan in an emergency.