We carried out a review of the data available to us about Kingsfield Residential Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Kingsfield Residential Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Kingsfield Residential Care Home is a residential care home registered to accommodate up to 27 people in need of personal care. Accommodation is provided over three floors with single rooms. On the days of the inspection there were 22 people living at the home.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Recruitment processes needed to be reviewed as some pre-employment checks were missing. We have made a recommendation about this in the 'Safe' section of this report.
In some areas of the home, people could access items that could be dangerous to them and others. This included cleaning products. We have made a recommendation about this in the 'Safe' section of this report.
As a result of the issues seen in the 'Safe' section of this report, we have reduced the rating in that domain from 'Good' to 'Requires improvement'.
The provider’s systems for monitoring safety of the service had not been effective in anticipating the issues we saw during the inspection. We have made another recommendation about this in the 'Well-led' section of this report. Management and provider oversight was otherwise good. The service made appropriate notifications to us and other authorities of any safety incidents.
Medicines were safely administered and people received their medicines as prescribed from well trained staff.
Infection, Prevention and Control (IPC) processes required additional input from management around the processes with professional visitors. Generally, we were assured about the service's ability to mitigate the transmission of infections.
Safe visiting processes were in place to ensure people could see their visitors when they wished and could maintain relationships that were important to them. People and relatives said they did not have any complaints about the service but were confident to raise any issues.
People told us they felt safe and were happy with the service they received. They and their relatives said staff were kind and caring and they were treated well. At inspection, we noted good interactions between people, management and staff. People had access to appropriate activities. There was an activities programme and people said they particularly enjoyed visits by external entertainers such as singers and musicians.
Staff understood how to protect people from abuse and there were enough staff to meet people's needs and to ensure their safety. The provider's safeguarding processes were robust. Staff told us they had received training and support relevant to their roles and when they commenced employment.
Care plan records provided a guide to staff to help people to retain their independence and receive support with minimum risk to themselves or others. People's care and support needs were assessed prior to them using the service to ensure their needs could be met. Where people's needs could not be met, the home worked well with others to ensure people were appropriately supported.
People were supported to live healthy lives and had access to health and social care professionals. People also had a good choice of meals. Drinks were available at any time of day and night.
The home worked in partnership with other organisations to provide effective and consistent care. 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.
People were treated as individuals which helped protect their dignity. Their equality and diversity was respected by a caring staff team. Staff understood the importance of giving people their time and the importance of encouraging people to maintain their independence.
People were happy with the way the service was managed and staff felt valued and enjoyed working at the home. People's views and opinions of the service were sought and acted on.
The provider acted during and immediately after the inspection to address the risks we found. This included improved monitoring, reviews and dealing with some environmental concerns.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 24 February 2020).
Why we inspected
We undertook this inspection as part of a random selection of services rated Good and Outstanding to test the reliability of our new monitoring approach.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the 'Safe' key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Kingsfield Residential Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Kingsfield Residential Care Home is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 27 people, some of whom are living with dementia. It is an older property that has been adapted for its current use. The accommodation is over three floors and there is a stair lift to assist people to access the accommodation on the upper floors. At the time of the inspection there were 22 people living there.
People's experience of using this service and what we found
People told us they felt safe living at Kingsfield. The provider had safeguarding systems and risk assessments to protect people from abuse or unsafe care and incidents and accidents were recorded and analysed. Procedures to support the safe recruitment of staff were followed and there were enough appropriately trained staff on duty day and night to provide the support people needed. People received their medicines as prescribed and systems were in place for their safe management and supply. The premises were well maintained, clean and hygienic and staff followed infection control procedures.
People were supported to live healthy lives with a nutritious diet in line with their personal choice and healthcare needs and had prompt access to professionals as needed. Staff worked collaboratively with other agencies and professionals to support people's choices and provide effective and consistent care. 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.
People and visiting professionals were positive about the care provided and the kindness of staff. The atmosphere within the home was friendly and welcoming, people's beliefs were respected and their independence and personal dignity consistently promoted. Staff supported people to express their views and ideas and be as involved as they could be in making decisions about their care, their personal goals and how their home was run.
Staff provided care and support to consistently meet people's needs and choices. Staff knew people well and helped them achieve their personal goals, pursue their own interests and take part in activities and entertainments they enjoyed. People were supported at the end of their life with compassion, to be comfortable and free from distressing symptoms and pain. Systems were in place to deal with any complaints raised about the service.
The provider had governance and quality assurance systems to drive improvement and service development. Staff felt valued and respected by the management team and the strong leadership of the service promoted a positive and open culture. The registered manager displayed knowledge around the responsibilities of their role and the importance of openness working with other agencies and professionals. Professionals spoke highly of the joined up and co-ordinated care and support that they found working with the home.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 4 August 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The home is an older property that has been adapted and extended for its current use and accommodation is arranged over three floors and there is a stair lift to assist people to access the accommodation on the two upper floors. The bedrooms in the home vary in size and layout and there are three double bedrooms. There is a garden to the rear of the home and an outside smoking area that is wheelchair accessible and has outdoor seating. There is parking available at the front and side of the home for staff and visitors.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Some people were living with dementia and had limited verbal communication but those did speak with told us they were happy and well cared for and felt safe living at the home. We were told the staff were “kind” and “very nice”. Relatives also made positive comments about the levels of staffing and staff approaches and care and told us they were confident that people living at the home were safe.
People who were able told us they were liked the food provided and enjoyed their meals. We saw regular snacks and drinks were provided between meals to ensure people received adequate nutrition and hydration.
The service had a complaints procedure that was made available to people on their admission to the home and their relatives. People we spoke with and their relatives told us they had no complaints about the service.
Staff had been recruited safely, were being appropriately trained and supervised in their work. We observed that they had the skills, knowledge and understanding required to support the people who lived there. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care.
Staffing levels were observed to be sufficient during the day to meet the needs of people who lived at the home. We noted that additional staff were being introduced during the busy late evening and early morning periods to help make sure that an increase in dependency levels could be addressed.
The registered manager had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take appropriate action when required. Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people who lived at the home. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care and support people required.
Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and were clear about the care people wanted and had received. They had been kept under review and updated when necessary to reflect people's changing needs.
We found medication procedures at the home were safe. Staff responsible for the administration of medicines had received training to help make sure they had the competency and skills required.
The registered manager had used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included regular audits of the service, satisfaction surveys and staff and resident meetings to seek the views of people about the service. We found that records were well kept and up to date. Equipment had been serviced and maintained as required.
The service followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of practice and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This helped to protect the rights of people who were not able to make important decisions themselves. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.
This unannounced inspection took place on 19 November 2014. We last inspected Kingsfield Residential Care Home (Kingsfield) in November 2013. At that inspection we found the service was meeting the regulations that we assessed.
Kingsfield provides accommodation for up to 27 people who require personal care and support. Accommodation for people living there is arranged over three floors and there is a stair lift to assist people to access the accommodation on the upper floors. The home is an older property that has been adapted and extended for its current use. The bedrooms in the home vary in size and layout and there are three double bedrooms. There is a garden to the rear of the home and a smoking area that are wheelchair accessible and private and has accessible outdoor seating. There is parking available at the front and side of the home for staff and visitors.
The service had a registered manager 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.
People living in the home told us that they felt safe living there and friends and relatives we spoke with were satisfied with the care provided. We spoke with people in their own rooms and those who were sitting in the communal areas and were told by people that they felt “Well looked after”.
The service followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of practice and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This helped to protect the rights of people who were not able to make important decisions themselves. The service worked well with external agencies such as social services and mental health professionals to provide appropriate care to meet people’s physical and emotional needs.
People were able to see their friends and families as they wanted and go out into the community with support. There were no restrictions on when people could visit the home. All the visitors we spoke with told us that staff were “friendly” and “available” when they wanted to speak with them. They told us that they were made welcome by the staff in the home. The atmosphere in the home was open and inclusive. People were asked for their views of the home and their comments were acted on.
The staff on duty we spoke to knew the people they were supporting and the choices they had made about their care and their lives. The decisions people made about their care and daily activities were respected. People had a choice of meals and drinks, which they told us they enjoyed. People who needed support to eat and drink received this in a supportive and respectful manner. We saw that people were supported to maintain their independence and control over their lives as much as possible.
All of the people that we spoke with told us that routines in the home was flexible to meet their needs and choices about their lives. The registered provider had a procedure to receive and respond to complaints and people told us they knew they could speak to the manager about anything that concerned them.
The home had moving and handling equipment and aids to meet people’s mobility needs and to promote their independence. The home was being maintained and we found that all areas were clean and free from unpleasant odours.
Safe systems were in place for the recruitment of new staff and for the induction and ongoing training and development of staff working there. This was monitored to help make sure staff employed in the home were well trained and competent to carry out their duties. The staff employed were aware of their responsibility to protect people from harm or abuse. They knew the action to take if they were concerned about the safety or welfare of an individual. They told us they would be confident reporting any concerns to a senior person in the home.
From our observations and conversations with people living there we found they had received the support they needed and were given choices about their care and their social activities. We observed that staff encouraged people to maintain their independence and control over their lives and make their own decisions. We saw that people were comfortable and confident with the staff on duty. We were told that staff were "Very helpful and patient."
There were sufficient staff to support people and meet their social and personal care needs. We were told 'I think the staff are very good" and "They always come when I call them". Staff worked well with other agencies to coordinate people's care and support with other services and agencies involved with their care. The service had robust recruitment processes in place to help make sure that the staff providing care and support were suitable to work with older adults.
The standard of record keeping and monitoring in the home was good. Records were up to date and accurate and well organised.
People living there and their relatives said that they had not needed to complain about care. Records showed that complaints had been managed appropriately and people told us they had confidence in the manager to investigate. One person told us, "All the staff are very good, I am happy and have never had to complain. They told us that if they needed to complain they would "Speak to the manager, she's very nice."
People in this service were protected from harm and abuse because there were suitable policies and procedures in place. Staff had been trained in how to recognise abuse and to deal with any concerns. We were told that,
"They look after me very well and give me a hand when I need it."
"The staff are very kind and check on me at night."
"They're grand lasses, easy to get on with and we have a good laugh at things."
All those we spoke with gave positive feedback about how their privacy and dignity were maintained and how they felt involved in their care because staff asked them what they wanted.