You are here

Archived: Apex Prime Care - Gillingham Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 18 March 2020

About the service

Apex Prime Care Gillingham provides domiciliary support services to people in their own homes. It provides a service to older people and younger adults some of whom have a physical disability, sensory impairment or dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 179 people receiving a service.

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.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were supported by staff who had received safeguarding training and understood how to keep people safe from harm or abuse. People’s individual risks were assessed and managed without being restrictive.

The service had a recruitment and selection process that helped reduce the risk of unsuitable staff supporting people. Medicines were managed safely and administered as prescribed. Learning identified from accidents and incidents was shared with people and staff to reduce the chance of them happening again.

People’s needs were assessed with their involvement and, where appropriate, those important to them. Initial assessments captured people’s needs, likes, dislikes, abilities and background.

People were supported by staff who had an induction, training and ongoing competency checks. Staff received supervision and annual appraisals. People were encouraged and supported to eat and drink sufficiently. The service understood the importance of timely contact with health professionals to help keep people healthy. Where people’s health needs changed staff supported or encouraged them to contact health professionals such as GPs, dentists and district nurses.

Staff understood the importance of offering choice and support in line with what people needed and preferred. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff consistently asked for people’s consent before offering to support them. Where people lacked capacity to make particular decisions they were supported by staff who understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The service ensured that only representatives with the correct legal authority were asked to sign to give consent on behalf of people who are assessed as lacking capacity to make certain decisions.

People, relatives and a professional told us staff were kind and caring. Staff understood how to help maintain people’s privacy and dignity. People were supported by staff who had got to know them well. People were encouraged to maintain their independence.

People were supported in line with their assessed needs. Where people’s needs changed their care was amended to reflect this. People told us they were supported to make decisions about the support they received. One person told us, “They [carers] are wonderful. I can’t fault them.” People’s specific communication needs were known, respected and met. When required these were shared with professionals, for example hospital staff.

There was an open and supportive culture at the service. Staff were encouraged to contribute their views and ideas during team meetings.. Staff said they got on well and enjoyed their jobs. They told us they felt supported and listened to by the registered manager and colleagues. A staff member said, “[Name of registered manager] has been brilliant to work with.” Staff were praised for good practice and were given opportunity to progress.

Audits were undertaken to help maintain the quality of the service and identify where improvements could be made. The service sought feedback from people and their relatives twice a year. The feedback in December 2019 was almost entirely positive.

The service had established and maintained good working relation

Inspection areas



Updated 18 March 2020

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 18 March 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 18 March 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 18 March 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.



Updated 18 March 2020

The service was well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.