Kings Den

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 71 (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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

There was a positive culture of support in the care home which focused on person-centred care and support. The registered manager was new in post, but was clear in their understanding of the organisational values and expectation. They told us, “I have in my mind the type of care I want to give to people and they type of home I want this to be.” A professional told us, “Kings Den presents as a reflective, person-centred and rights-based service. The individuals living in the home appear happy, secure and well-supported. There is a culture of warmth, respect and aspiration, alongside clear governance and safeguarding awareness.”
 

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The provider and management team had a clear commitment to providing person centred care and valuing staff and people who lived at the home.

Staff said the management team were approachable, inclusive and supportive. One staff member said, “[The nominated individual] is a very, very good person to talk to if we have any issues. [They have] helped me a lot a lot.” Another staff member told us, “There is always a leader around, they do exactly the same as everyone else does from an involvement perspective and are happy to do any tasks that need doing, including daily tasks such as cleaning and shopping. I think they’re visible and this is appreciated.”
 

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

There were systems and processes in place to encourage and respond to feedback from people using the service, staff and external stakeholders. A staff member said, “I am [aware of the term ‘freedom to speak up’]. It means that staff and those we support feel that they can speak up and be heard and live in a positive culture. Which encourages a positive wellbeing.”

Formal and recorded opportunities for staff to speak up included staff surveys, team meetings and supervisions.
 

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

Equality and diversity principles were embedded in practice and policy. The service was built on inclusivity and there was a diverse staff team who were encouraged to share their values and perspectives.

Staff had access to equality policies and training to help them understand diversity, protected characteristics, bullying and harassment. A staff member said, “We are all treated fairly and equitably.”
 

The provider had newly implemented responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and governance. They used these to manage and deliver, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

At our last assessment in 2022 we identified that care records were not always in place to inform staff of people's needs and risks. Systems were either not in place or robust enough to demonstrate people's safety was effectively managed. At this assessment we followed up on the previous concern and found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of the regulation. However, whilst we saw these systems had been strengthened, they were newly embedded and the registered manager was working towards achieving consistently high levels of good governance. We identified some paperwork which was outdated on the inspection. We shared this with the leadership team who responded positively to our feedback and made the required updates immediately and comprehensively. The registered manager also shared a clear plan for compliance, which provided an overview of each specific area for quality and compliance month by month, within an annual planner.

Whilst we saw that the systems and processes had improved, more time was needed for the developments seen on inspection to be fully embedded and impact upon the governance across the service. One professional said, “The service is currently in a period of positive development under a relatively new Registered Manager. The Registered Manager is working proactively to rationalise systems and processes to ensure documentation is up to date, streamlined and not duplicated across multiple records. This work is focused on strengthening oversight, improving efficiency and ensuring that staff time is maximised for direct care rather than administrative duplication. From my perspective, this reflects a commitment to continuous improvement. The leadership approach is thoughtful and structured, and the direction of travel is positive.”

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Professionals told us, and we saw on inspection, that the service was receptive to feedback and engaged well.

The service was working towards continuously developing and maintaining links with the local community. People were supported to participate in volunteering, employment, social groups, and community activities.
 

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

Independent visitor reports took place routinely as another means to assessing the delivery and quality of care. They audited information and produced reports for the provider and the registered manager. This had helped to improve the overall performance of the home and contributed effectively to the learning, improvement and innovation.

The provider prioritised learning and had invested in some staff to complete more in-depth training and qualifications with a nationally recognised organisation.

The registered manager was in the process of updating all the policies to ensure they were current and accessible, guiding staff in expected practice. There was evidence of continuous improvement, with lessons learned informing ongoing updates.