Maidstone Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We found that the service was no longer Good in relation to the Caring domain and was now Requires Improvement. Although staff were kind and supported people to be as comfortable as possible, people’s dignity was not always maintained. People were not always treated as individuals and their choices and preferences were not always accounted for. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in a timely manner. However, staff felt positive and told us that the service was beginning to improve. They felt supported in their roles.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were positive about the staff. A person said, “I like the staff here. They make me feel safe.” Relatives were generally positive about the staff comments included, “The staff are kind and they're pretty good”; “Some are jolly and interact with [loved one], but I don't really know, it's sort of mixed” and “The staff are lovely to varying [degrees of] lovely, some are better than others.”

Staff described how they cared for people with an emphasis on making sure people’s needs were met and ensuring they were comfortable.

Feedback from partners was mixed about whether the service provided to people was kind, compassionate and dignified. Some feedback was, ‘Staff interacting with Maidstone care centre patients is highly dependent on the individual staff member. There is no set culture or standard that seems to be recommended.’ Despite this, professionals found the staff were polite and respectful in their professional interactions with other professionals.

We observed staff interactions with people were kind during our visit. However, we observed that people's dignity was not always well maintained. For example, staff used a privacy screen when they were supporting people with equipment to mobilise however this was not always used well and this support was still visible to others. We fed this back to the provider who told us they took action to purchase more privacy screens so that people’s dignity could be better protected in the future. Some people were given a tray on their lap to eat their meal from while sitting in the lounge. An appropriate table to make sure they could eat a relaxed meal and to prevent the risk of spillage was not available. Some people were eating their food in bed with a plate on their lap, which meant some people had spilt food down their clothes. There was a risk people would not be able to eat their whole meal due to these circumstances and that their dignity was not maintained.

People were not always supported in line with their individual preferences and with their likes and dislikes in mind. A person said, “The worst thing is that they get me up late and I miss my breakfast.” A relative said, “[Loved one] never drinks tea with milk [loved one] has green tea or peppermint tea, they just don’t take time to know [loved one], there is no individual care because of the turnover of staff – [loved one] has been there three years in September and its painful, so painful.”

Staff told us they knew people individual needs, likes and preferences through reading people’s care plans. However, not all people’s care records contained their likes and dislikes for all aspects of their care. Staff told us they “Treat everyone equally” and “Respect” every person they support.

We observed people’s experience was mixed in relation to them being treated as individuals. For example, we observed a person twice in a position which compromised their safety and dignity, during our assessment. There was risk mitigation in place for the person’s needs such as the person’s planned care was to be regularly checked for their welfare. However, these checks were not consistently recorded as completed and we found during our assessment that the mitigation in place had not been sufficient to protect the individual from being in a vulnerable position which did not protect them.

There was a process in place as part of the service’s care planning to support staff to know important things about a person to enable them to treat people as individuals. People’s care records contained an about me section which contained details about their lives and some of their likes and dislikes. However, these details had not been recorded for everyone. People’s preferences, likes and dislikes around food, meals and drinks were not always recorded in their nutrition care plans. This section was left blank in many of the care records we looked at, which meant that new or agency staff may not be aware if people disliked a particular food or what was their favourite food which could be offered if they refused a meal or snack. In a previous survey the provider had sought people’s feedback in relation to individual preferences in the responses while half of people who responded agreed they had their preferred food available, half of people only partially agreed.

Feedback from people and relatives was mixed about whether or not they felt they had choice and control over their care. Comments from people included, “The meals are all edible, lots of mash, carrots, and peas. I don’t get a choice” and “I can have breakfast in bed if I want. The carers wash and dress me. I choose what I want to wear.”

Staff told us they encouraged peoples independence. For example, a staff member said, “We know they can get into a wheelchair, I change my tone by saying something like ‘come on I know you can do it’ as a way to encourage their independence.” Staff told us they offered people choices. For example, a staff member told us, “I offer them choices and explain options so they can make decisions for themselves.”

We observed people were not always given choice and control. For example, 1 person whose care plan said they were able to drink out of a normal cup or glass was drinking out of a beaker with a lid at lunchtime. Another person whose care plans said they could drink out of a normal cup or glass but sometimes had a beaker with a lid, was also drinking out of a beaker with a lid at lunchtime. There was no guidance for staff in their care plan to explain when or why they may use a beaker. People may not always be treated with respect by enabling their choice and independence as many new staff had started working in the service and were still getting to know people. At other times we did see staff offering people choice and respecting their wishes. For example, where they wished to sit in their lounge or whether they wanted to wear something to protect their clothes during mealtimes.

There were systems in place to support staff to give people choices. Processes were in place to audit the quality of care and actions taken to help improve people’s experience to increase people’s involvement. For example, during mealtimes staff showed people what was on the menu by showing them a show plate on the trolley, so they had an informed choice of what they wanted to eat. This was an action that was implemented following an audit. However, the feedback received during this assessment indicated that this action had not been effective to ensure all people felt they had choice.

Feedback from people was mixed about whether the service responded to their immediate needs in a timely manner. A person told us they had to wait for their food at mealtimes and it was cold when it arrived. Another person said, “I think the staff could look after me better. I’m not sure how. When I wake in the middle of the night, and I ask for some food, they won’t give me anything. If you want a shower in the morning, you have to book it the day before.” Another person told us on the day of our assessment, “I haven’t had a wash yet today at 11:45”. A relative also fed back their loved one had not been washed until the afternoon. Some people felt when they required assistance they were supported quickly.

While staff told us they felt there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Some staff shared feedback that there were particular times of the day when they were busy and felt they would benefit from more staff to better meet people’s needs. We saw the management team had processes in place to review whether the service was responding to people’s immediate needs. Meeting minutes flagged the inconsistent washing opportunities for people and the leadership team were planning to address this.

We observed during our assessment that people’s drinks were not always within their reach which meant people’s immediate needs were at risk of not being met. We observed 1 person still had not had their lunch 1 hour after the lunch period had started. 40 minutes after the beginning of lunch service the person began calling out over a 20-minute period that they were hungry and their food would be cold, staff called back to them twice during this time to inform the person that it was coming. We observed other people also had a disjointed dining experience whether in communal areas or their own rooms.

Staff all told us they felt valued and supported. Staff told us there were regular staff meeting. A staff member said, “We have regular staff meetings where anyone can raise concerns and to check everyone is ok.” Most staff felt supported in their opportunities to develop in their roles and enrol in additional courses.

There were systems and processes in place to support staff well-being and enable them. We saw that staff were now receiving regular supervision. Staff meetings were now being held regularly to better support staff in the roles and improve well-being. Staff had completed a survey which provided oversight about how enabled and supported staff felt. The last staff survey results indicated several areas where the service could improve. Action had been taken by the provider to improve staff well-being and support.