You are here

Archived: PCAS Kent Ltd Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 September 2018

This inspection took place on 8 and 9 August 2018 and was announced.

PCAS Kent ltd is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses in the community and provides care and support to people living in 'supported living' settings, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People's care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people's personal care and support. This was the service first inspection since they registered with CQC in August 2017.

Not everyone using PCAS Kent Ltd receives 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. At the time of the inspection, the service was supporting eight people with their personal care needs. This included older people, younger adults and people with complex health needs such as epilepsy, dementia and mental health. People who use the service live in Gravesend, Isle of Sheppey, Maidstone and the surrounding areas.

The service had a registered manager. 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. The registered manager, who was also the provider and director was supported in their role by a director, finance manager, office administrator and a team of four supported living managers. The provider was also actively recruiting for a service manager, who would have the responsibility for the day to day management of the service.

People were at the heart of the service. Staff demonstrated thorough understanding of each person's individual needs and preferences and used this knowledge to provide them with flexible, responsive support which enhanced the quality of their lives.

People, their relatives, health and social care representatives consistently told us staff were very caring and always treated people with great respect and empathy. People told us staff knew how to meet their needs, were kind, always respectful and well trained. Staff were empowered to work creatively and to develop positive relationships with people. Staff were proud of the support that they provided to people and the positive outcomes that they had observed.

People were safe using the service. People told us they felt safe and comfortable when staff were in their home and when they received care. Recruitment practices ensured the right staff were recruited to support people to stay safe. Staff told us they were happy in their jobs and had access to training. They said they felt well supported and had regular opportunities to discuss their work. The rotas reflected the support people required to maintain the choices they had made, and as a result the staffing arrangements were flexible to meet those needs. A number of people received care from staff on a one to one basis and records showed that people received their care in the way they needed to maintain their safety.

People were supported safely with their medicines and told us they were happy with the support they received. Staff completed medicines administration records (MAR) after giving people their medicines. MAR sheets were audited to ensure people had received their medicines as prescribed.

Support plans and risk assessments were developed from the initial assessment information. Support plans were comprehensive, individualised and developed with each person. They described the support the person needed to manage their day to day health needs. Risks to people were identified and guidance and control measures

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 29 September 2018

The service was safe.

People felt safe and staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns to keep people safe from harm.

People were supported by suitable numbers of skilled and qualified staff. The service's recruitment processes helped ensure suitable staff were employed. People and staff were matched together for compatibility and staff had time to meet people's physical and emotional needs.

Risks relating to people were safely managed. Measures to reduce risk were put in place and staff were confident about putting guidance into practice.

People who needed staff assistance to take their medicines were supported safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 September 2018

The service was effective.

The service provided support, supervision, training, learning and development programme which helped keep staff�s skill and knowledge up to date.

People�s physical health needs were kept under regular review. People were supported by a range of relevant health care professionals to ensure they received the support that they needed in a timely way.

People received support with their dietary needs in line with their choice and health requirements.

Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and people's consent was sought appropriately.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 September 2018

The service delivered very good care and support.

The provider, director and staff were committed to a strong person centred culture.

Feedback from people, their relatives and health and social care representatives was positive. People and their relatives told us staff were warm, friendly and very caring and that they were always treated with great respect, dignity, kindness and compassion.

People benefited from staff who took time to listen to them and get to know them. Staff had formed meaningful and caring relationships with people.

People benefited from staff who promoted their independence. Staff encouraged people to stay active in their homes and to exercise choice and control over their lives.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 September 2018

The service was responsive.

Staff supported people to ensure they received responsive care and support in accordance with their needs and preferences.

Assessments were made before people began to use the service and people were involved in the development of their individual support plan, which reflected them as a person and the support they required.

People were supported to remain part of the community, follow their interests and take part in social activities.

Arrangements were in place to deal with people's concerns and complaints. The service had not received any complaints in the last 12 months.

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 September 2018

The service was well-led.

People were at the heart of the service and focused on providing a person-centred service to people.

The service worked in partnership with other agencies to make sure that they followed current best practice and provided a consistently high-quality service.

The provider was committed to making continuous improvements and developments to the service and had clear management system in place to ensure the quality and safety of the service was maintained and built upon.

The provider and director displayed strong leadership which was admired and appreciated by the staff team.