Kindred Community Ltd

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. People received safe care from supportive staff who understood their individual needs and risks, including those in their own homes. Staff worked in partnership with key health care professionals and made referrals to services in a timely manner. People received their medicines as prescribed. The provider had ensured systems were in place to keep people safe from abuse and harm. There were enough trained staff to support people.

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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. People’s care and treatment was effective due to their health, care, well-being, and communication needs being assessed with them. People’s care plans were kept up to date, with any assessments completed in a timely manner. Staff were aware of people’s preferences and respected these in a person-centred way. People were aware of their rights around care and treatment. Staff showed a good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), including consent.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. Their care was delivered in a timely way, with any changes in care being communicated clearly to staff. People had access to information about how to raise a complaint. Where complaints had been raised, these had been responded to in line with the provider's policy. People's future plans and end of life care needs were met in line with their preferences in a respectful and dignified way.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care. Robust quality monitoring systems helped the provider identify any shortfalls in the management of people’s care and the running of the service. There was a positive and open culture. The provider used feedback from people, staff and other professionals to drive improvement. Staff and professionals praised the managers and told us they were approachable and listened to their views. Staff were open and honest with people and their relatives when things went wrong. Staff were encouraged to reflect and consider any learnings after any incidents to help prevent further incidents. The equality and diversity of people and staff was respected and promoted.