- Homecare service
Kalm Living
We served a warning notice on Kalm Living on 19 June 2026. There was a failure to to implement robust systems and processes to make sure service users were protected from the risk of abuse and improper treatment. The provider also failed to establish and operate effective systems and processes to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.
Assessment report published 22 May 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 10 December 2025 to 26 February 2026. On 25 and 26 February 2026, we conducted an announced assessment at the registered location.
Kalm Living is a supported living service providing personal care to people with a learning disability and autistic people in their own homes. At the time of our assessment 4 people were receiving support with personal care in 4 different supported living settings. Other people supported by Kalm Living were not receiving the regulated activity of personal care and therefore were not included in this assessment.
The assessment was carried in response to concerns we had received.
We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities which most people take for granted. We found evidence of a poor culture where people were not consistently supported in line with this guidance or the principles of the supported living model. A paternalistic approach was adopted by staff which impacted on people’s ability to exercise their individual autonomy to make informed decisions.
People were not supported to develop long term goals which could improve their outcomes. Some of the language used by staff in care plans and daily notes were not respectful or empowering. This did not demonstrate kind, compassionate and dignified care and support. Aspects of the supported living settings were more akin to the ethos of a care home and did not support people to develop a sense of ownership for their homes. One person had been excluded from their living room to enable a staff meeting to be held.
The provider had not ensured care staff understood and worked within the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, whenever they worked with people who may lack the mental capacity to make some decisions. Restrictions were in place for a person at night. There was no evidence these were the least restrictive option in the person’s best interest. These restrictions were therefore unlawful. As a result of these restrictions, the Care Quality Commission made a safeguarding referral to the local authority.
People were not always protected from the risk of abuse. There was a lack of effective systems and processes to monitor incidents and accidents. As a result, safeguarding concerns had not been escalated to the local safeguarding authority and CQC were not notified in line with legislation. Due to the lack of oversight by the registered manager and provider, there was a risk of missed opportunities to learn from events impacting on people’s wellbeing. Medicines management practices were not robust.
The provider did not demonstrate the experience, capacity, capability and integrity to ensure people were supported in line with both statutory and best practice guidance placing people at risk of inappropriate care and support. Staff training was ineffective. Staff lacked the knowledge and skills to meet people’s support needs.
The provider had failed to establish and operate effective systems and processes to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. Governance processes failed to ensure compliance with the requirements of the regulations.
Health and social care professionals confirmed the service worked alongside them to ensure people’s care and support needs were met.
Staff felt respected, supported, and valued by the registered manager. They felt the registered manager was approachable and took a genuine interest in them.
We identified 4 breaches of the regulations in relation to person-centred care, safe care and treatment, safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment and good governance.
People's experience of this service
People did confirm they felt safe with the staff that supported them and felt able to raise any concerns. People commented, “I would speak to staff if I was worried about anything." Relatives commented, “I’ve not had to raise any concerns to the provider”;“I only have positive things to say. [Person] is happy there. They wouldn’t be living there if we didn’t trust the staff. We have such a great relationship with the staff and manager” and“I've never had to raise any concerns.” People demonstrated a good understanding about their health care needs. For example, one person told us about a care review which was due to take place with their psychiatrist, and another person told us about an upcoming cataract operation. Relatives told us people were well supported with their health needs. Comments included, “Staff support [person] to attend GP appointments. [Person] is prone to cellulitis in their leg; staff keep an eye on this and escalate appropriately” and “They [staff] take [person] to all hospital appointments. Keyworker takes [person] to these for continuity of care.” People’s rights and freedoms had been unnecessarily restricted, and the provider had failed to protect people from risk associated with closed staff cultures.