Kingston House

About the service

Kingston House is a care home providing personal care to people with a learning disability and autism. At the time of our inspection there were 8 people receiving care. The service is set in the community in an adapted building over 3 floors with a large garden.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Feedback from families and relatives was positive. A relative told us, “I never have to worry about [person name] being there.” Another relative said, “I am very happy with the service, communication is good and they love being there.”

Right Support:

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way which was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. People were cared for safely by staff who had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks had been completed. There were systems in place to minimise the risk of infection and to learn lessons from accidents and incidents. Medication was dispensed by staff who had received training to do so and assessed as competent.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Right Care:

Care was person-centred and promoted people’s dignity, privacy and human rights. The registered manager enabled staff to develop their skills and learning to provide good quality care. People were supported with diet and nutrition to maintain their well-being. Staff worked well with health care professionals to support people’s well being.

Right Culture:

The ethos, values, attitudes and behaviours of leaders and care staff ensure people using services led confident, inclusive and empowered lives.

Care was focused on supporting people to remain independent. Staff supported people to engage in their local community. Care was personalised to people’s needs and staff reviewed and adapted support as people’s needs or wishes changed. The registered manager had systems in place to monitor the service and outcomes for people.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The rating at the last inspection was good (published 15 December 2017).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

Kingston House accommodates up to nine adults who have a learning disability and who may also have an autistic spectrum disorder and mental health needs. Kingston House is a large detached house situated in a quiet residential area in Leigh on Sea and close to all amenities. The premises is set out on three floors with each person using the service having their own individual bedroom and adequate communal facilities are available for people to make use of within the service.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the ‘Registering the Right Support’ and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

At the last inspection on 1 December 2015, the service was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.

This inspection was completed on 21 November 2017 and there were seven people living at Kingston House.

A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

• Suitable arrangements were in place to keep people safe. Policies and procedures were followed by staff to safeguard people and staff understood these measures. Risks to people were identified and managed to prevent people from receiving unsafe care and support. The service was appropriately staffed to meet the needs of the people using the service. People received their medication as prescribed and in a safe way. Recruitment procedures were followed to ensure the right staff were employed. People were protected by the providers arrangements for the prevention and control of infection. Arrangements were in place for learning and when things go wrong.

• Staff had a thorough induction to carry out their role and responsibilities effectively. Staff had the right competencies and skills to meet people’s needs and received regular training opportunities. Suitable arrangements were in place for staff to receive regular formal supervision. People’s nutritional and hydration needs were met and they were provided with drinks and snacks throughout the day. People received appropriate healthcare support as and when needed from a variety of professional services. The service worked together with other organisations to ensure people received coordinated care and support. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

• People were treated with care, kindness, dignity and respect. People received a good level of care and support that met their needs and preferences. Staff had a good knowledge and understanding of people’s specific care and support needs and how they wished to be cared for and supported.

• Support plans were in place to reflect how people would like to receive their care and support, and covered all aspects of a person's individual circumstances. Social activities were available for people to enjoy and experience both ‘in house’ and within the local community. Information about how to make a complaint was available and people’s representatives told us they were confident to raise issues or concerns.

• Suitable arrangements were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. There was a positive culture within the service that was person-centred, open and inclusive. The service sought people’s and others views about the quality of the service provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We spoke with four people who lived at the home, but in some cases due to their needs we were not able to have long conversations with them. In response to our question, "Do you like living here," one person replied, "Yes." Another person said, "I like living here; all of the staff are very nice." We observed the care and attention that people received from staff. All of the interactions we saw were appropriate, respectful, encouraging and friendly.

The accommodation was adapted to meet the needs of the people living there. We found the home was warm, clean and was personalised to the people who lived there.

We observed that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, we found the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

We saw that people's support plans and risk assessments reflected their needs and were up to date. Staff we spoke with were aware of the contents of the support plans, which enabled them to deliver appropriate and safe care.

The provider had systems in place that ensured the safe receipt, storage, administration and recording of medicines. Staff recruitment systems were robust.

We spoke with two relatives who told us that the care was, 'Excellent.' One relative said that the service was, 'Like a big family.'

We looked at three care plan files and found that people's individual needs had been considered and plans detailed the support required. We found that people's capacity to consent to care and treatment was not consistently assessed and recorded.

There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. However we found that some systems in place were not effective to ensure that the premises were safe and suitable for people using the service.

We found that people were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. There were systems for people using the service and others to raise any concerns, complaints or compliments they had and staff took appropriate action as required.

We have clarified since our inspection that Michelle Lee Jones is the registered manager for Kingston House.