KD Healthcare · Karpe Diem Healthcare Ltd · homecare and supported living, West Sussex
KD Healthcare holds Good overall and on every key question, published 5 July 2022 and verified against the live CQC register on 28 August 2026. That rating comes from one routine inspection, of a service supporting nine people, under the regime that preceded the Single Assessment Framework. It has stood unchanged for 4.2 years. In the same registration class, 599 agencies have since been assessed under the current framework, and 212 of those went into that assessment holding a Good.
The 30-second read
Taken by Alexey Litvin, GreenM's CEO. Nothing to prepare, we bring the analysis.
Overall rating
Goodall five key questions · published 05.07.2022
Age of the rating
4.2 yearsfieldwork 24.06.2022 · one inspection to date
Current-framework position
None yetno quality-statement scores exist for this location
Peers already re-assessed
599 of 2,310other rated agencies in your registration class
A rating is only as current as the evidence behind it. Yours is a single published document, four years old, describing a service that has had four years to change. That is the exposure this section measures, and it is separate from the grade itself.
The six shifts in the guide are the rules this analysis is scored against. For adult social care the operative document is the draft Adult Social Care Assessment Framework: each key question judged against written descriptors instead of calculated from statement scores, and evidence read continuously from your systems between assessments rather than sampled during one. Your rating predates both the scoring it replaces and the statements it replaces them with, which puts you in a particular position. Here is what that position looks like measured.
The five key questions survive the change; the way they are reached does not. Your column is your published 2022 rating. The peer column is not a score comparison, because you have no score to compare: it is what has happened to those same five key questions across the 599 agencies in your registration class that have been assessed under the current framework.
Within your registration class, 212 locations carried a Good under the previous framework and have since been assessed under the current one. 155 kept Good, 5 moved up to Outstanding, 45 came out Requires improvement and 7 Inadequate. So a Good held on the way in about three times in four, and moved below Good 52 times.
The median gap between the old rating and the new assessment across those 212 was 5.8 years. Yours is 4.2 years old. That is a measured distribution, not a schedule: CQC has published its re-assessment priorities, and this document makes no claim about when or whether yours arrives.
For a service rated under the Single Assessment Framework we can take their 34 statement scores and re-read each key question the way the draft frameworks read it, on its weakest statement rather than its average, and show which key questions would change band. That calculation cannot be run here, and we will not imitate it. Your rating predates the quality statements, so no statement scores exist for this location and there is nothing to re-read.
The consequence is the finding. 597 of the 599 agencies re-assessed in your class carry a statement-level record of themselves, and you carry none, so an assessment here would start from your systems rather than from a documented position. Under continuous monitoring as the draft frameworks describe it, that is the material difference between a four-year-old Good and a recent one.
Illustrative reading against published draft frameworks; this document predicts nothing about what CQC will do.
This table is most of what we would walk through live, the 30-minute walkthrough starts from it.
Your comparison group is every CQC location registered as both a homecare agency and a supported living service, and not a care home. Besides you there are 3,862 nationally, of which 2,310 carry a published rating; your own figures are excluded from every count and average on this page. Peer agencies are counted, never named: their ratings belong on their own register entries, not in your document. Nationally, 7,471 services of all types carry a current-framework rating and 23.3% sit below Good; in your class specifically it is 22.0% of the 599.
132 of the 599 sit below Good, which is 22.0%, close to the 23.3% national figure across all rated services. The bar is real and it is not exceptional. Cohort: every location registered as both a homecare agency and a supported living service, not a care home, latest assessment per location, re-derived from the register on 28.08.2026.
Being inside the six-year threshold is genuine protection against the aged-rating priority, and it is worth saying plainly. It is not protection against the second thing that changed: a rating reached from continuously-read evidence rather than from one visit. That part applies from the end of 2026 whatever the age of the rating standing today.
These are the statements the 599 re-assessed agencies in your class score weakest on, with the share of them scoring each below Good. None of these is a finding against you, because you have no statement scores. They are the closest available read on where an assessment of a homecare and supported living service concentrates now, which makes them the places evidence is worth having ready.
Audit trails that identify without closing; oversight evidenced by meeting minutes rather than by data; the provider's own quality picture reconstructed for the assessment rather than standing ready.
Administration records complete while error and near-miss analysis is thin; competency re-checks evidenced by attendance rather than by observation; people supported with their own medicines without the risk decision written down.
Risk plans written for the person rather than with them; positive risk-taking described in policy but not visible per person; deterioration escalation evidenced inconsistently between staff groups.
Call-length and travel-time records held but not analysed for trend; competency checks completed without an evidenced cadence; bank and agency induction thinner than the provider's own policy.
Incident learning that reaches the meeting but not the care plan; improvement work whose effect on people is never measured.
Mental capacity assessments recorded as a decision rather than per decision; best-interests records naming who was consulted but not what was weighed; consent to care and to information-sharing conflated in one signature.
Everything in the left column is quoted from CQC's published 2022 report and belongs to the service as it was inspected then. The watch items are labelled by where they come from, because only one of them is a finding about you at all.
Inspectors recorded that “the registered manager had a robust system in place for ensuring that each event, incident, accident and feedback was used as a learning opportunity to reflect on staff practices”. Learning, improvement and innovation is one of the six statements this class scores weakest on, so this is the strength most worth being able to evidence again.
The report notes that “people's care plans were created by the person based on how they wanted to receive care and support and guided staff on how people wanted their daily routines to be”, and that people “were autonomous and as much as possible, chose the staff team they wanted to support them”. That is the outcomes-over-process evidence the draft framework asks for, recorded four years before it asked.
Inspectors found that “staff received a thorough induction before supporting people and had their competency checked by the management team” and were “trained in areas that were relevant to the people they were supporting”. In a service supporting people with motor neurone disease and spinal injuries, that specificity is the whole point.
Every finding above describes an inspection at which nine people were using the service. Nothing published since re-tests any of it, and CQC's July 2023 review looked at data rather than at the service. Whatever KD Healthcare looks like now, the register's account of it is four years old, and under the continuous monitoring the draft frameworks describe, the next read would start from what your systems say rather than from that account.
CQC registers this location for both homecare agencies and supported living. The 2022 report describes a domiciliary care agency delivering personal and nursing care in people's own homes; supported living is not what it assessed. Where an operation spans both, the evidence each generates is different, and only your side can say what the supported living registration carries today.
153 of the 599, or 25.5%, are below Good on well-led, more than any other key question, and governance, management and sustainability is the statement they score weakest at 2.42 of 4. That is the shape of assessment in this class, not a criticism of yours, and it is the part that lands on a service improvement remit rather than on the front line.
What the answer turns on: how many people you support today, across which of your two registered service types, and how much of the nine-person description still fits.
What the answer turns on: which parts of your record are produced by your systems as a matter of course, and which exist only when someone assembles them.
What the answer turns on: whether your quality picture can be produced from your systems on an ordinary day, or has to be reconstructed. Only your side can see which it is.
What the answer turns on: what your call monitoring shows when it is read as trend data, which is how a continuously-monitored service is read.
What the answer turns on: how tenancies, support hours and outcomes are recorded on that side, and whether that record would stand next to the domiciliary one.
What the answer turns on: where your statutory notifications, safeguarding referrals, complaints and workforce returns live, who owns each, and what a quiet period in them reads as.
