Kindred Community Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

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.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People and their representatives told us they had a care plan which accurately reflected their needs, and they were involved in its development and review. One person’s representative told us, “The care planning is regularly reviewed, it needs to be.”

Feedback from staff and leaders confirmed people were fully involved with their care planning and where appropriate, any relatives or significant others. People’s care plans reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Staff told us they had access to people's care plans and that they were regularly reviewed and updated. They told us care plans were informative and provided clear guidance on how to support people. The registered manager told us, “We have complex care planning, one client might need picture format, or practical care planning for more complex needs. We do this with the client as much as possible, we discuss on a low level, or at whatever level they need. The team leader in charge of their care is writing them, as they know the clients best. We’re working out what type of care plan they need. For example, a community care plan, an out in car care plan etc.” Care plans contained person centred information that enabled staff to know what care and support people needed.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People and their representatives told us they were involved in decisions about their care and support. They told us staff supported them to access other services as and when needed. One person’s representative told us, “Everything that happens is built around what she wants to happen.”

Feedback from staff and leaders confirmed people received a good continuity of care. The registered manager told us there was a joined-up approach to care from both internal and external services, and how the person’s own social worker was regularly consulted in reviews of their care. Staff told us they had developed good working relationships with other professionals that were involved in people’s care and support.

Feedback from external partners confirmed people received care and support which met their individual needs. One external professional told us, “Kindred Community Ltd. put their clients at the centre of their care and support. This is evidently their priority, and they do this holistically. They have an experienced, highly trained, and skilled staff who apply their expertise to individuals’ rehabilitation goals. Their support not only provides focused care to their client, but also the relatives of the person receiving the care, making this truly holistic.”

Processes were in place to ensure when people’s care involved external services, it was delivered in a co-ordinated way which met their needs and preferences.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People told us they were provided with the information they needed about their care and support and had access to equipment and systems that allowed them to communicate more effectively. A person’s representative told us, “We haven’t needed to, but we know we can request large print and that kind of thing.”

Staff and leaders confirmed people’s needs to have information in an accessible format was assessed and recorded. These needs were met and reviewed to support people’s care and treatment in line with the Accessible Information Standard. Staff confirmed they supported people to access and understand information relevant to them.

Processes were in place to ensure people’s needs to receive information were met and reviewed to support their care and treatment in line with the Accessible Information Standard. Polices such as safeguarding and complaints could be provided to people in formats which were accessible for them. If required, people were able to use alternative forms of communication in their care plans and risk assessments to ensure their understating, for example, by the use of pictorial information or voice recordings.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People said they would speak up if they had any concerns and were confident they would be listened to. One person told us, “Yes I’ve told them if I wasn’t happy.”

Feedback from staff and leaders confirmed they actively listened and involved people. They described how they communicated with people in a way they understood, and which was meaningful to them. The registered manager explained how they used surveys, reviews, meetings and also the formal complaints procedure to obtain people’s feedback. Staff knew about the complaint's procedure. Staff told us they would take complaints seriously and follow the provider’s complaints procedure.

Processes were in place to ensure people’s voices were heard. There were opportunities for people to make a complaint or feedback to staff at any time. The management team also operated an open-door policy. Any concerns raised were treated with compassion and as an opportunity to learn.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Feedback from staff and leaders confirmed staff supported people to access additional services in a timely way.

Feedback from partners confirmed people had free choice and access to any external service provisions they required. One external professional told us, “They also make great efforts to link with and update statutory services, to ensure that clients are kept safe and have good outcomes.”

Processes were in place to ensure people did not experience any barriers in accessing the care and support they required.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

We could not get direct feedback from people in relation to equity in experiences and outcomes. However, feedback we received from staff and documentation we saw showed that people, sometimes with support, were in control of their care.

Staff had completed training around Equality, Diversity and Human Rights (EDHR), which helped to recognise, promote and protect people's protected characteristics. Staff showed a good awareness of what discrimination meant and how to challenge any concerns. Processes were in place to help ensure people’s care, treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers and protected their rights.

Care plans contained information about people’s social, cultural and spiritual needs should be met. Training records showed staff received equality and diversity training which helped them to understand discriminatory behaviours and practices.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People were involved in decisions about their future, and they felt listened to. People told us they made decisions about their home. People talked about what they hoped to do in the future and told us they talked to staff about their plans.

Staff told us they held conversations with people about their futures plans and aspirations, including hoping to live more independently. Staff had received end of life care training. They also confirmed they had good support from external health care professionals when this was needed.

The registered manager had systems in place, to ensure people had access to the right care and treatment at the time they needed this, so people would receive a dignified death. People's care records contained information about their long-term plans, which included, living more independently in a community-based setting.