Kingsley Court

Updated 8 December 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection was a comprehensive inspection which took place on 1 November 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hour’s notice of the inspection visit because the location was a small care home for younger adults who are often out during the day. We needed to be sure that they would be available to talk with us.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector. We spoke to a director, the registered manager, two members of staff, two relatives and two people who live at the home. We completed observations in communal areas, due to the nature of people's needs, we were not able to ask everyone direct questions, but we did observe people as they engaged with their day-to-day tasks and activities. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We reviewed records including; accident and incident logs, quality assurance records, compliments and complaints, policies and procedures, four positive behaviour plans, three medicine administration records and two records relating to staffing. We pathway tracked the care of four people. Pathway tracking is where we check that the care detailed in individual plans matches the experience of the person receiving care.

Before the inspection, we reviewed information relating to the home including correspondence from people, professionals, and notifications sent to us by the registered manager. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law. We also used information the provider sent to us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

After the inspection we spoke with a healthcare professional to gain their view of the support provided at the home.

This was the first inspection of Kingsley Court.

Updated 8 December 2018

Kingsley Court is a residential care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is registered for four people living with a learning disability, complex needs and autism. The provider had applied to increase the number of people living at the home. Accommodation was provided over two floors and people have their own rooms with an en-suite.

We inspected the home on 1 November 2018 and the inspection was announced. This was the first inspection of Kingsley Court; the home was registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 2017.

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.

Kingsley Court had a registered manager. '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 were safe. A relative told us, “My son is safe living there, I know that because he is calm and happy when I see him.” Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and there were systems and processes in place to reduce the risk of harm to people. People were supported to take positive risks. Staff had a flexible approach to risk management which ensured good outcomes for people. Staffing was managed well and the team were well coordinated and flexible to meet the changing needs of people living at the home. Accident and incidents were managed safely and lessons learned to improve the care people received. Medicines were managed safely. Staff who administered medicines were trained and had regular competency checks which supported their practice to remain safe.

People's needs and choices were assessed before they moved into the home and regularly thereafter. Staff had the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and support and received a range of training opportunities. Staff were supported in their role. A staff member told us, “We have regular supervision which is an open conversation. It allows us to discuss any areas for development and what we do well.” People were asked consent before being supported. We observed staff asking people what they would like to do before assisting them to do it. People were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in

the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were supported to access healthcare services as and when needed. We saw evidence that people had access to a variety of healthcare professionals such as; GP's, dentists, chiropodists and opticians. People were supported to maintain a balanced diet. Staff were aware of people's individual dietary needs, their likes and dislikes. People’s needs were met by the design and adaptation of the building. People could move freely around the communal areas and the garden which were secure. People were cared for in a clean and hygienic environment.

People were treated with kindness and respect. One person told us they were “very happy” living at the home. Staff had a visible person-centred approach to supporting people. From our discussions with staff and observations of their support of people, it was evident that they were committed to providing people with individualised care. People were supported to be as independent and active as possible. People were supported to be involved in decisions about their care and given support to express their views. A relative told us, “I feel my son is supported to make decisions as far as he can, I know he has a key worker who helps him with this.” People's privacy and dignity was respected. People's care plans reflected human rights and values such as people's right to privacy, dignity, independence and choice.

Relatives told us the staff were responsive to people's needs. One relative told us, “My son had a medical need that was not picked up at his previous home, the staff noticed this during his assessment and got him the right medical help.” Care was personalised to meet the needs of individuals. People were at the centre of care planning and fully involved in the process. People were active in their local community and had access to activities that met their interests. Activities were an important part of people's lives and were led by people's choices.

The home was well-led. A relative told us, “The home is well managed, I know the registered manager and he is supportive.” Management of the home was robust and the registered manager understood the regulatory responsibilities of their role. The culture of the home was positive and enabled people to live how they wanted to. There was a relaxed and friendly atmosphere within the home. Systems and processes were in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service being delivered. Staff worked in partnership with other organisations to ensure people's needs were met. A healthcare professional told us, “We have regular communication. The staff and manager are very open and responsive to our suggestions.”