The Kent Autistic Trust - 52a River Drive

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. People’s health risks were well managed and mitigated. People were supported by staff who understood their health and support need and completed training in relevant areas. Effective safeguarding processes were in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of harm and abuse.

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. People and those involved in their care took part in assessments and reviews. People were able to make their own decisions about their care and their life.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care. People were able to spend time with others that were important to them, and staff supported people to facilitate and maintain relationships.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. t our last assessment we rated this key question Outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. People did not have end of life care plans in place, however the manager put plans in place to address this. People received responsive, personalised care and support that met their needs and reflected their preferences. Staff worked closely with people’s families and others important to them to assist them to understand decisions they had made. The provider had a clear ethos for the service based on human rights, anti-discrimination and equity principles, and staff and people who used the service understood these.