We carried out a review of the data available to us about Authentic Kare Kettering on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Authentic Kare Kettering, you can give feedback on this service.
Authentic Kare Kettering is a domiciliary care agency and a supported living service. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes.
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. At the time of this inspection 21 people were receiving support with personal care.
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.
At the time of the inspection, the location provided care and support for 4 people with a learning disability. We assessed the care provision under Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture, as it is registered as a specialist service for this population group.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Right Support
Staff supported people to have choice, control and independence over their lives. People were supported with their medicines in a way that achieved best possible health outcomes.
Staff supported people to access health and social care support, which included a regular review of their prescribed medicines. There were systems and processes in place to safeguard people from potential harm. Staff completed training about safeguarding and knew how to report abuse. Risks to people using the service were assessed and strategies were put in place to reduce the risks.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Right Care
People had care plans and risk assessments in place setting out their care needs. Improvements had been made to the review process to ensure people’s care was regularly assessed and updated if changes were needed. Care plan information was detailed and provided staff with the guidance they needed to support people safely.
People were supported by staff who could communicate effectively with them as staff supported them consistently and knew them well. For example, the provider had recruited staff who were able to use a specific form of communication, to work with 1 person who used that form of communication.
People received care that focused on their quality of life and followed best practice, with input from a range of health and social care professionals.
Right Culture
Improvements had been made to the provider’s recruitment processes and staff files to ensure staff were recruited safely. People received care from staff who had the right character and skills for their roles.
Management oversight of the service had improved. A range of quality assurance audits were in place and were effective at identifying concerns or areas for improvement. Records management was more organised which made accessing and reviewing information easier.
The provider had systems in place to monitor incidents and accidents so action could be taken to promote people’s safety. The provider informed us they would re-introduce a monthly analysis of accidents and incidents to strengthen the systems in place.
Staff supervision, staff meetings and spot checks were undertaken regularly and used to develop and motivate staff, review their practice, and focus on professional development.
People and those important to them, were involved in planning their care. The service evaluated the quality of support provided to people, involving the person, their families and other professionals as appropriate.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was Requires Improvement (published 20 July 2022) and there were breaches of regulation in the areas of staff recruitment processes and good governance. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected
We undertook this focused inspection to check that the provider had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions of Safe and Well-led which contain those requirements.
The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those key questions, not looked at on this occasion were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service has changed to Good.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
Authentic Kare Kettering is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care and support to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were 26 people using the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Recruitment processes were not always safe so the provider could not assure themselves staff had the right character and experience for their roles. There were some concerns about staff working practice including some staff working long hours and some being required to give a long notice period if they wished to leave.
Management oversight of the service was insufficient. Quality assurance audits were not always effective at identifying concerns or areas for improvement. Records management was disorganised. There were multiple systems in place, both electronic and paper based, which made accessing and reviewing information confusing and time consuming.
The provider was not prepared or organised to facilitate a CQC inspection. Gaining access to the necessary information to complete the inspection was difficult.
People had care plans and risk assessments in place setting out their care needs and how risks should be safely managed, but reviews of these did not take place regularly. Up to date care records were not always readily available as some were held in people’s homes.
Accidents and incidents were recorded by staff and followed up. Regular reviews to identify any patterns or themes did not take place, which meant opportunities may be missed to reduce the risk of the same thing happening again.
Support was provided to assist people take medicines when required and this was recorded electronically. Guidance for staff to follow for all ‘as needed’ medicines was not available to view during the inspection.
People felt safe with the care they received and safeguarding processes were followed when required.
Staff had received training in infection prevention and control and positive feedback was received about staff practice in this area.
Positive feedback was mainly positive from staff about their experience of working for the service. Team meetings took place and feedback was sought from people about their experience of the service.
People and relatives provided positive feedback about the quality, timeliness and consistency of care they received.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was good (published 16 October 2018)
Why we inspected
We received concerns in relation to recruitment practices in the service. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.
For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service has changed from Good to Requires Improvement based on the findings of this inspection.
We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. Please see the safe and well-led sections of this full report.
Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Authentic Kare Milton Keynes on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Enforcement and Recommendations
We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection. We will continue to monitor the service and will take further action if needed.
We have identified two breaches of regulation in relation to recruitment practices and good governance at this inspection.
Follow up
We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
Authentic Kare Kettering 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. At the time of our inspection, 21 people were using the service, all of which were receiving personal care.
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.’
People told us they felt safe, and staff had an understanding of abuse and the safeguarding procedures that should be followed to report abuse. People had risk assessments in place to cover any risks that were present within their lives. All the staff we spoke with were confident that any concerns they raised would be followed up appropriately by their manager.
Staffing levels were adequate to meet people's current needs. People told us that staff mostly arrived on time, and calls were not missed.
The staff recruitment procedures ensured that appropriate pre-employment checks were carried out to ensure only suitable staff worked at the service. References and security checks were carried out as required.
Staff attended induction training where they completed mandatory training courses and were able to shadow more experienced staff giving care. All new staff were taking part in the Care Certificate which teaches the fundamental standards within care. Ongoing training was offered to staff and mandatory areas of training were kept up to date.
Staff supported people with the administration of medicines, and were trained to do so. The people we spoke with were happy with the support they received.
Staff were trained in infection control, and told us they had the appropriate personal protective equipment to perform their roles safely. We saw that staff had reported any concerns they had around infection control within people’s homes to management, who had then acted appropriately.
Staff were well supported by the registered manager and senior team, and had one to one meetings, spot checks and observations.
People's consent was gained before any care was provided and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were met. Consent forms were signed and within people’s files.
People were able to choose the food and drink they wanted and staff supported people with this, and people could be supported to access health appointments when necessary.
Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect and spent time getting to know them and their specific needs and wishes. People told us they were happy with the way that staff spoke to them, and provided their care in a respectful and dignified manner.
People were involved in their own care planning and were able to contribute to the way in which they were supported. Care planning was personalised and mentioned people’s likes and dislikes, so that staff understood their needs fully. People told us they felt in control of their care and were listened to by staff.
The service had a complaints procedure in place to ensure that people and their families were able to provide feedback about their care and to help the service make improvements where required. The people we spoke with knew how to use it.
Quality monitoring systems and processes were used effectively to drive future improvement and identify where action was needed.
The service worked in partnership with other agencies to ensure quality of care across all levels. Communication was open and honest, and improvements were highlighted and worked upon as required.