Archived: Maidstone Home Care Limited

- Is the service safe? We found that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. We saw that two members of care staff were trained in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and that two newly recruited members of staff were scheduled to attend the training. The training included the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. All staff had been subject to criminal checks before they started work. We found that people's mental capacity was assessed and best interest meetings were held according to legal requirements. We found risk assessments with clear action plans were in place to ensure people remained safe.

- Is the service effective?

People and their relatives told us they were satisfied with the quality of care that had been delivered. People who used the service commented, "All the care workers from Lyn's care are efficient, courteous and fully understanding of my specific needs". We saw that the delivery of care was in line with people's care plans and assessed needs. We found that the staff had received training to meet the needs of people who used the service.

- Is the service caring?

We found that people who used the service were supported by kind and attentive staff. A relative of a person who used the service told us, "Lyn's care is the best thing in our lives at present, they are caring, efficient and reliable, I have nothing but praise for them and would not hesitate in recommending them; they really make a difference". Another person who used the service said, "The staff are considerate and not patronising, they really seem to care and respect my preferences".

- Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before care and support began and their support plans were reviewed regularly to reflect any change in their needs. We saw that people's records included people's history, wishes and preferences. People and/or their representatives were involved with reviews of care plans and were kept informed of any changes.

- Is the service well-led?

We found that comprehensive policies and procedures that addressed every aspect of the service were in place. Policies were updated regularly and staff were made aware of the updates. The manager and the administration officer operated a system of quality assurance to identify how to improve the service. People and their relatives or representatives were consulted about how the service was run and annual survey questionnaires were analysed. Staff told us they were able and encouraged to express their views and concerns they may have and were listened to. A member of staff told us, "The manager is really good, she listens". Staff's practice was regularly observed and supervised by the manager to identify whether additional training or refresher courses were needed.

People spoke positively about the agency, with comments such as 'Standards of care are absolutely excellent', 'Cannot praise them highly enough, they are wonderful, very gentle with X and very caring of X's privacy', 'Standard of care is good' and 'Cannot praise them enough they were absolutely first class'.

People were given all the information they needed to make an informed decision about their treatment, and were asked to sign their consent to their treatment.

We found that the agency had obtained suitable information from people to provide effective levels of care to meet their assessed needs. The support plans were detailed and informative.

People were visited by care staff who were appropriately trained and supervised in order that their individual care needs could be met.

A complaints/comments system was in place that encouraged patient feedback as this was considered important for improving the service. All the comments we received from people about the service were positive.