Kalm Living

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 requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 61 (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 choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

We did not see evidence of people being encouraged to develop their independence or widen their experiences. A paternalistic approach was adopted by staff which impacted on people’s ability to exercise their individual autonomy to make informed decisions. For example, people were not truly encouraged to live enriched lives whereby future goals were explored to increase people’s independence, choice and control over their own lives.

People were not able to confirm they were involved in care plan reviews. However, there was a keyworker system, which enabled people to communicate their needs and experience of the care and support received on an ongoing basis with a particular member of staff.

Relatives were positive about the support provided. Comments included, “I am involved with care plan reviews. It's usually with a social worker. The most recent review increased [person’s] one to one hours. Kalm living are really good at supporting reviews” and “[Person’s care and support] is reviewed periodically with [them] and myself to make sure the support is safe and bespoke to [them].”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their localcommunities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People received support from a consistent staff team. This ensured people were able to build up trusting relationships with staff who knew their needs.

There was evidence of the service liaising with health and social care professionals on a regular and timely basis.

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

People had communication care plans explaining how people preferred to communicate. We observed staff using short sentences, maintaining eye contact, referring to objects of reference and looking for people’s facial expressions and gestures as detailed in their care records.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider’s complaints policy was not up to date and did not contain contact details of other relevant organisations including the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO). The complaints poster also did not contain contact details, other than for the provider. The service had not received any formal complaints.

Tenant’s meetings took place. The meetings discussed menus, plans for the week, issues at the house, anything which needed replacing due to breakages or needed fixing, and anything to buy for the house.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service worked with other health and social care professionals in line with people’s specific needs. Care files showed evidence of professionals working together. For example, GPs and various consultants to ensure people experienced tailored care and support.

People attended annual health check-ups with their GP to ensure timely interventions and to promote good health.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

There was a lack of opportunities for people to live like any other citizen in line with statutory guidance, Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture. For example, there was no evidence of people being encouraged to widen their experiences and develop new skills sets.

People were 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.

At the time of the inspection the service was not supporting anyone at the end-of-life.

Following our inspection, we shared useful guidance with the provider on end-of-life care planning with people with learning disabilities.