United Response - Kent DCA

Kent DCA is a domiciliary care agency providing supported living to people in their own homes including multi occupancy accommodation and single dwellings in Ashford, Folkestone, Hawkinge, Dover and Maidstone as well as providing outreach support. It provides a service to a range of people including adults who have learning disabilities, physical disabilities and mental health needs.

A domiciliary care agency provides personal care to people living in the community. Supported living settings enable people to live as independently as possible. In supported living, people's care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living or domiciliary care; this inspection looked at people's personal care and support. Kent DCA also supported people who did not receive a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

At the time of our inspection, although the service provided support to 67 people in total, there were 33 people receiving a personal care service we regulate. The support provided aims to enable people to live as independently as possible. Some people required 24-hour support which was provided in supported living accommodation. Many of the people supported by the service had previously challenged traditional services and required bespoke and flexible support packages.

The service was run by a registered manager who was present during our visit. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager of this service oversaw the running of the full service and was supported by managers who were based at the various supported living settings.

At our last full inspection on 11 and 12 January 2016 we rated the service good overall, and in each domain with the exceptions of Safe, rated as requires improvement and Caring, rated as outstanding. We re- inspected the service on 3 March 2017, focusing on the Safe domain. At that inspection, the service was rated as Good. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe and comfortable. Staff continued to receive training in how to safeguard people, they were available in sufficient numbers and had received the training required for their role. Thorough checks made sure new staff were suitable to work with people. Medicines were safely managed and people received their medicines as prescribed.

Everyone was extremely positive about the range of activities, events and opportunity for social inclusiveness with the local community. The provider ran an outlook community network resource for people, a donations shop and offered regular opportunities for people to meet and make friends. People were active, went out in their local area and took part in college courses, work experience and community projects.

People were supported to be as independent as possible, including involvement in meal planning, preparation and shopping, as well as keeping their home clean and doing their laundry. 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. People were offered choice, staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to put them into practice.

People were supported to maintain their health, access health services and were given advice about healthy eating.

People benefitted by being supported by staff who were kind, compassionate and valued people's contributions. Staff knew people well including their preferences and supported people's individuality and diversity.

Risk assessments continued to detail how people wished to be supported, staff understood how to follow this guidance to meet people's individual needs and keep them safe. People's end of life wishes were recorded.

A complaints procedure was formats people could understand. People and their relatives were aware of how to make a complaint.

Staff felt well supported by the management team. People and their relatives felt the service was well run. The service worked in partnership with other organisations and sought and acted on their advice to improve outcomes for people. The provider continued to have a quality assurance process in place which included gaining people's views about the service and how it could be improved.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The five questions we ask about services and what we found