KC Care & Social Activities Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Before people started using the service, members of the management team met with people and their relatives to assess their needs and choices. The assessments were comprehensive and person-centred. These were regularly reviewed and updated.

People confirmed they were involved in an initial assessment of their needs and were asked about their preferences. A relative said, “Yes, [my family member] was involved and I was involved.”

Most people and relatives said people had a copy of their care plan, although some people did not remember. A relative added, “[My family member has a copy, and [staff] keep records.”

A staff member told us, “Every client has a care plan with detailed descriptions of their needs within their homes. We also use ‘a digital system that is used daily and which has their care plans on.”

The provider planned people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. For example, people’s care plans focused on maintaining their independence to enable people to live in their own homes for as long as possible. Everyone confirmed they, and those close to them were involved in planning their care when they first started using the service. One person said, “Me and my daughter were involved.” People also said they had reviews. For instance, 1 person told us, “I have had a review, a lady came with the carers.”

A staff member told us, “My job is to ensure I give good quality of care, provide practical and emotional assistance to individuals who need help with daily living, personal care, or accessing community resources. My role is to empower individuals to live as independently as possible and promote their well-being. This means supporting people with all different needs.”

People’s dietary needs, including cultural needs, and preferences were assessed and planned for. Where staff helped with meal preparation, people felt staff were competent. Comments included, “[Staff] are good. They will suggest things if I don’t know what I want” and “They ask me what I want. They offer me drinks and snacks”. A relative said, “They support [my family member] with meals. They have training to do this.”

People were confident to speak to staff and managers if they had any concerns. A relative said, “[My family member] has told the carers when something was wrong. They will share with the carers.”

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff recorded detailed notes during each visit to people who used the service. The registered manager liaised with other professionals to share information and ask for advice when needed. Where people received advice or care from other professionals, we saw these details were included in people’s care plans.

People felt staff worked well together. People said, “[Staff] know what they are doing. Good team”, “They work well together.” and “They pass information to each other”. One person also said, “If they don’t know, I tell them what I want’’.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. The service assessed and planned for people’s healthcare needs, making sure staff had appropriate information. They made timely referrals when people had become unwell and alerted relatives to concerns. Where people had specific health goals, this formed part of their care plans.

We asked people if staff supported them with healthy living. Their comments included, “Yes, [staff] will ask me to exercise”, “They tell me to move my feet, encourage me” and “They do encourage me to eat healthy.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People’s care plans and daily records included information and updates about their on-going care and support needs. Referrals were made to local health and care services when people needed specific clinical support or assessments.

People and relatives confirmed staff contacted health professionals when needed. For instance, 1 person said, “[Staff] have contacted the doctor for me.”

Staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act and understood the importance of ensuring that people fully understood what they were consenting to and the importance of obtaining consent before care was delivered. People and their relatives told us staff sought people’s consent before providing care.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. When people receive care and treatment in their own homes an application must be made to the Court of Protection for them to authorise people to be deprived of their liberty.

We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA.