A care agency which supports people to live an independent life in their own homes was placed under special measures.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) took action to protect residents following a five-day inspection of Strood-based Prudent Domiciliary Care Limited.

The independent watchdog deemed the services as being overall “inadequate” dropping from its previous “good” rating.

It said it would keep the organisation under review and closely monitored to ensure clients are kept safe while the CQC’s required improvements are carried out.

The assessment raised concerns with Rochester and Strood MP Lauren Edwards who has asked to meet representatives from the company, also known as PBG.

The survey carried out in July found that in the caring category, it had declined from “good” to “requires improvement”.

The inspection did not cover the areas of effective and responsive, so the firm retained its previous “good” result.

Serena Coleman, CQC deputy director of operations in the south, said: “We found a service where the service wasn’t being managed well.

“Staff schedule challenges were causing inconsistencies in care and putting people at risk of harm.

“Leaders hadn’t planned staff rosters to provide staff with travel time and breaks. This meant there were a number of significant delays in care visits and people didn’t feel there was a settled routine for them.

“Delays to care visits were inconvenient for people and didn’t allow staff the time to give care when it was really needed.

“For example, this affected when people needed help to prepare a meal or to take their medicines on time.

“People requested morning visits and were sometimes left waiting for hours. Some had asked for visits before 10am and were still waiting at 1 or 2pm.

“We also found inconsistencies in which staff member would visit a person which could upset the continuity of care.

“There were occasions when some visits would be missed entirely.

“People told us the service didn’t always manage change effectively.

“One person went into the hospital for an appointment and was advised the service would contact them that evening.

“Multiple people told us they had changed their care arrangements because their concerns had not been dealt with effectively…”

“However, the staff didn’t arrive that evening and the person slept in the clothes they had been in the previous day.

“When they contacted the manager the next day, they couldn’t explain why this call was missed.

“Leaders didn’t always respond to concerns. For example, one relative said they had raised verbal complaints about the delays in care visits in the past and nothing improved.

“They didn’t receive a response from the service about what actions would be taken.

“Multiple people and their representatives told us they had changed their care arrangements because their concerns had not been dealt with effectively.

“Leaders were aware of some challenges and issues which needed addressing in the service, but there was a delay in the management team realising the extent of the issues around rostering visits.

“Senior staff we spoke with were not always aware of the significance of the shortfalls and risks this posed to people.

“We’ve told the service where immediate improvements must be made. We’re currently working with other organisations including the local authority and monitoring the home very closely to make sure people are kept safe while this happens.”

Inspectors also found:

People said issues with care visits planning, delays and inconsistencies in staffing made them feel that they did not have control or choice around their own care.

The provider had systems and processes for safe management of medicines. However, this was not followed consistently which put people at risk of harm and not receiving their care as required. People were sometimes given medicines when it may not have been necessary.

Some people said they were concerned about how staff supported people around safe preparation of food or cleaning their equipment.

The service had recognised significant issues with the planning and delivery of the care visits, but they didn’t have effective plans to minimise the risks to people.

The provider and registered manager had not shared the risks and challenges relating to people’s care to the local social services team and had continued to accept new care contracts despite knowing they were not meeting the needs of the people they currently supported.

The report will be published on CQC’s website in the next few days.

Labour MP Ms Edwards said: “I am concerned that Prudent Domiciliary Care Limited in Rochester has been rated as inadequate by the Care Quality Commission, with poor management putting people at risk of harm.

“I am also unhappy to hear that they continued to accept new contracts despite knowing they were not meeting the needs of those they were already supporting.

“I have requested a meeting with the company to discuss the next steps to urgently improve the quality of care for residents.”

Clients were asked by the inspectors for their views of the service, many of who complained about the irregularity and lack of punctuality of visitors.

One said “there is no routine” and another commented the delays on allotted visits sometimes impacted people’s ability to take their medicine on time and as prescribed.

But comments were complimentary about staff saying they were caring and attentive and how they supported them to live in “a clean and comfortable environment”.

Prudent Domiciliary Care Ltd’s registered manager Ericka Davies said in an update on December 12: “The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has recently notified Prudent Domiciliary Care Ltd that the Notice of Proposal dated October 18, 2024 to impose a condition on their registration for the regulated activity of Personal Care has been withdrawn.

“This decision was made after careful consideration of the evidence provided by Prudent Domiciliary Care which included detailed representations and supporting documents. The CQC acknowledged that some of their initial conclusions were based on incorrect assumptions and have therefore withdrawn the proposal.”

The company is listed as employing 30 staff.

The CQC’S full report is due to be published shortly.