Curant Care Maidstone

Updated 30 June 2023

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by 2 inspectors and 2 Experts by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.

Registered Manager

This provider is required to have a registered manager to oversee the delivery of regulated activities at this location. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered managers and providers are legally responsible for how the service is run, for the quality and safety of the care provided and compliance with regulations.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection.

Inspection activity started on 18 April 2013 and ended on 27 April 2023. We visited the location’s office on 18 and 20 April 2023. We carried out phone calls with people, relatives and staff between 19 April 2023 and 27 April 2023.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority who commission the service. We also sought feedback from Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. Healthwatch told us they had not visited the service or received any comments or concerns since the last inspection.

We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return (PIR). This is information providers are required to send us annually with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with 10 people who used the service about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with 5 people's relatives. We spoke with 14 members of staff, including care staff, senior care staff, the care coordinator, the deputy manager and the registered manager.

We reviewed a range of records. This included 8 people's care records and multiple medicines records. We looked at 4 staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

Updated 30 June 2023

About the service

Curant Care Maidstone is a domiciliary care service providing personal care to younger adults with physical disabilities and adults aged 65 and over in the Maidstone area. At the time of our inspection there were 30 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

Risk assessments were in place to provide guidance to staff on how to support people. However, risks to people's safety had not always been identified. Risk assessments did not have all the information staff needed to keep people safe. Medicines management was not always safe. The provider could not be assured that people had received their medicines as prescribed.

The service was not always well-led. The provider had failed to identify issues relating to risk assessments, medicines management and mental capacity. Their quality monitoring processes had not identified issues with records that we found on inspection.

People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not support this practice.

Prior to people receiving a service their needs were thoroughly assessed. However, some assessments were not robust enough to identify the complete picture of people’s needs. Oral health and medicines had not always been included in the assessment.

People and relatives had mainly positive views about the service. Comments included, “The care that my loved receives from the carers is very good”; “They are really good carers, in fact they are very good”; “They listen to what you say and will adapt to suit our needs” and “I am very happy with my care and I recommend the company.”

The provider had an up-to-date infection prevention and control (IPC) policy. Staff had completed IPC training. Staff had access to enough PPE and wore this to keep themselves and people safe.

Enough staff were deployed to keep people safe. People were supported by regular staff who they knew well. Staff were well supported by the management team. Most staff had received training relevant to their roles, however some staff required additional training in catheter care, safeguarding and diabetes to make sure they could meet people’s needs effectively.

Care plans were in place which provided a list of tasks for staff to complete. These were person centred and detailed to show new staff what all the tasks were. People and their relatives told us staff knew their needs and preferences well. They told us they had been involved with the care planning process.

People and relatives knew how to complain. The provider engaged with staff, people and their relatives. People had been contacted by the management team in regular telephone monitoring calls and via feedback surveys.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 24 August 2021). The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. This service has been rated requires improvement for the last 2 consecutive inspections.

At this inspection we found some improvements had been made. However, the provider remained in breach of some regulations.

Why we inspected

This inspection was carried out to follow up on action we told the provider to take at the last inspection.

Enforcement and Recommendations

We have identified breaches in relation to risk management, medicines management, mental capacity and quality monitoring at this inspection. We have made a recommendation about training for staff.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will meet with the provider following this report being published to discuss how they will make changes to ensure they improve their rating to at least good. We will work with the local authority to monitor progress. We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.