You are here

Care at Home Services (South East) Ltd - Canterbury, Herne Bay & Whitstable Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 3 January 2018

The inspection was carried out on 30 October 2017, and was an announced inspection.

Care at Home Services provides care and support to a wide range of people including, older people, people living with dementia, and people with physical disabilities. The support hours varied from 24 hours a day, to a half hour call and from one to four calls a day. Some people required two members of staff at each call. At the time of the inspection 167 people were receiving care and support from the agency.

There was a registered manager employed at the agency. 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.

At our previous inspection on 24 and 25 October 2016, we found continued breaches of Regulation 12 and Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We took enforcement action and issued out two warning notices. Care and treatment was not provided in a safe way for people because the provider did not have sufficient guidance for staff to follow to show how risks to people were mitigated. There was a risk of people not receiving their medicines as prescribed. The provider had failed to ensure that people were receiving their medicines safely. The provider had failed to ensure that suitable systems and procedures were in place in order to assess, monitor and drive improvement in the quality and safety of people. The provider had failed to mitigate risks relating to health, safety and welfare of service users. The provider had failed to ensure that people were protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care arising from a lack of proper accurate records.

We also found breaches of Regulation 9 and Regulation 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The provider had failed to make sure that people received person centred care and treatment that was appropriate, meet their needs and reflected their personal preferences. The provider had failed to ensure that people's capacity was assessed in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The provider sent us an action plan on 09 January 2017, which showed they planned to make the changes and meet regulations by May 2017.

At this inspection the provider had made improvements and they had met the warning notices.

The provider carried out risk assessments when they visited people for the first time. Other assessments identified people’s specific health and care needs, their mental health needs, medicines management, and any equipment needed. Care was planned and agreed between the agency and the individual person concerned. Some people were supported by their family members to discuss their care needs, if this was their choice to do so.

Effective systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. There were formal checks in place to ensure that all records were up to date. Care plans and assessments had been consistently reviewed.

Staff treated everyone with respect. They involved people in discussion about what they wanted to do and gave people time to think and made decisions. People told us that staff were caring.

The agency provided sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs.

The agency continued to have suitable processes in place to safeguard people from different forms of abuse. Staff had been trained in safeguarding people and in the agency’s whistleblowing policy. They were confident that they could raise any matters of concern with the registered manager, or the local authority safeguarding team.

The agency continue to have robust recruitment practices in place. Applicants were assessed as suitable for their job roles. Refresher training was provided at regular inter

Inspection areas



Updated 3 January 2018

The service was safe.

Staff were informed about safeguarding adult procedures. The provider had appropriate safeguarding policies and procedures in place.

The staff carried out environmental risk assessments in each person’s home, and individual risk assessments to protect people from harm or injury.

Accidents and incidents were monitored to identify any specific risks, and how to minimise these.

Staff were recruited safely, and there were enough staff to provide the support people needed.



Updated 3 January 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had received training relevant to their roles. Staff had received supervision and support from the management team.

People gave us positive feedback about the choices they were supported to make and the support they received at meal times.

Staff had a good understanding and awareness of the Mental Capacity Act.

People received medical assistance from healthcare professionals when they needed it.



Updated 3 January 2018

The service was caring.

People felt that staff provided them with good quality care. The agency staff kept people informed of any changes relevant to their support.

Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity, and encouraged them to retain their independence where possible.

Staff were aware of people’s preferences, likes and dislikes.

Wherever possible, people were involved in making decisions about their care and staff took account of their individual needs and preferences.



Updated 3 January 2018

The service was responsive.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were responding to people’s needs. Changes in people’s needs were quickly recognised with action taken.

People received care that was based on their needs and preferences. They were involved in all aspects of their care and were supported to lead their lives in the way they wished to.

The service had a complaints policy and people were aware of how to make a complaint.



Updated 3 January 2018

The service was well-led.

The service had an open and approachable management team.

Staff were supported to work in a transparent and supportive culture.

The service had an open and approachable management team. Staff were supported to work in a transparent and supportive culture.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.