Medway House

“Date of inspection 8 September 2026 to 30 September 2026. The service is a care home providing support to people living with mental health conditions. At the time of our inspection there were 5 people living in the home. The inspection was unannounced and took place as part of our regular monitoring role. The rating at the last inspection in June 2018 was good and after this inspection has remained good. The service had enough staff to keep people safe. Pre-employment checks were carried out to ensure recruitment was safe. Staff received an induction at the beginning of their employment and continued to have supervisions and training throughout their employment. Staff spoke positively about support from managers and described a stable team with regular communication through handovers and meetings. Quality monitoring took place and was effective within the service. Actions were identified for follow up and management and staff took action, which improved the service people received. Managers worked well with external partners to ensure people received relevant care and support. Regular audits and reviews ensured a good standard of care was maintained at the service. The manager did not always follow best practice guidance when assessing people’s mental capacity to consent and did not always look at least restrictive options for people living in the home. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. Staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were subject to a blanket restriction of having both the fridge and freezer locked, which limited people's independence and freedom within their home. The provider had not demonstrated these restrictions were individually assessed, proportionate, or the least restrictive option available.”