Kings Den

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
 

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.
Care was individualised and tailored to people’s needs, interests and preferences, and staff worked flexibly to accommodate changes that were needed. People had choice and control over activities and daily routines, and staff supported them to access the community and maintain hobbies and interests. This approach helped people feel valued and respected. One staff member said, “[We promote person-centred care] by being open and allowing [people] to freely express themselves without [staff] judging or giving our own personal opinion. [We have] open and honest conversations and [give people] the time and space to express their needs and wants.” A professional said, “I have found them to be very person centred and positive. They communicate well and put the [person] at the centre of their work. They have provided support that I would say is above and beyond other services in relation to therapeutic support available.”

We observed positive interactions between people and staff, and people appeared relaxed and comfortable at Kings Den. A professional said, “Carers have an excellent understanding of each person’s needs, communication style, risks and aspirations. Care is clearly tailored to the individual rather than being generic. Support is adapted thoughtfully, whether that is through the use of supportive communication strategies, adjusting approaches during periods of anxiety, or organising rota patterns around individual need to maintain relational consistency and stability.” Another professional said, “I know the service well and [it has] always demonstrated good person centre support. The environment is clean and tidy, the staff team know [people] well, and [people] seem happy overall.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The provider had good links with local health and support services which ensured continuity of care for people. The registered manager said, “We have good communication with GP…We have also built a relationship with the [relevant local authority teams and other local agencies].”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The registered manager was aware of their duty to provide information in a format suited to individual’s needs. The service had adopted a strategy which used all available methods of communication to help people express themselves effectively. The provider recognised that everyone was unique and valued each method of communication equally. For example, people’s care plans detailed their communication needs and the support they required; photographs and pictures were used to support personalisation and inclusion. We saw information was available in easy-read formats and other tools to support communication had been used, such as visual timetables and pictures exchange communication system (PECS). We found information on display to be accessible to people using the service.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Records and feedback confirmed that people were actively involved in decisions about their care. The service had an established complaints policy, and information on how to raise concerns was provided in an easy read format. This ensured that people could access clear, accessible guidance on how to make a complaint or provide feedback through a range of suitable options.
 

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People had access to the appropriate levels of support which reflected their assessed needs. People were supported to make choices about accessing a range of different activities, and pursue hobbies and interests of their choosing. One person had been supported to keep and care for a pet chicken.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff were aware of people’s individual needs, including any protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. Care plans included comprehensive information about people’s interests and what was important to them. Staff completed training in equality and diversity to understand and reduce inequalities or prejudices that affected outcomes for people.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. The service did not support people with end-of-life care. However, the provider had systems in place to ensure people were supported to plan for their futures. We found people had clear plans in place for their future wishes.