You are here

Archived: Kingwood - White Barn Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 16 August 2016

This inspection took place on the 7 July 2016 and was unannounced.

Kingswood – White Barn is a care home, which is registered to provide care (without nursing) for up to eight people with autistic spectrum conditions and learning disabilities. There were four people in residence during our visit.

The home is a semi-detached building in Reading and is close to local shops and other amenities. People had their own bedrooms with ensuite facilities and use of communal areas that included an enclosed private garden. The people living in the home need care and support from staff at all times and have a range of care needs.

There is a registered manager running the service. 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. The registered manager was present on the day of our visit.

There were effective systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. Various formal methods included quality monitoring visits by one of the organisations area managers and health and safety audits completed by the manager.

The home was clean and comfortably furnished. People had their own bedrooms, which were personalised with their own belongings. Equipment and furnishings were being purchased by the provider to meet people’s changing needs. Staff had received health and safety training that included basic first aid, infection control, moving and handling and positive behaviour support. People’s nutritional needs were met with meals that were appetising and cooked to meet individual needs.

People who use the service used a range of communication methods. These included non-verbal to limited verbal communication. Individual methods were supplemented by the use of pictures and objects of reference to indicate their needs and wishes, which were clearly understood by staff.

People received good quality care. Staff treated people with respect and kindness providing a service that was person centred. People were encouraged to live a fulfilled life with activities of their choosing and were supported to keep in contact with their families. However, there was no activity planner to promote recreational stimuli throughout the day for a person whose needs had changed. This was addressed by the provider and registered manager during our visit to improve incentives within recreational activities for the person.

There were robust processes in place to monitor the safety of giving people their medicine. People were supported to eat a healthy diet and they were helped to see their GP and other health professionals to promote their health and well-being.

The recruitment and selection process helped to ensure people were supported by staff of good character. There was a sufficient number of qualified and trained staff to meet people’s needs safely. Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns they had about the care and welfare of people to protect them from abuse.

People were provided with effective care from a staff team who had received support through supervision and training. Their care plans detailed how they wanted their needs met and these were regularly reviewed to ensure they were person centred. Risk assessments identified risks associated with personal and health related issues. They helped to promote people’s independence whilst minimising the risks.

The service had taken the necessary action to ensure they were working in a way which recognised and maintained people’s rights. They understood the relevance of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and consent issues, which related to the people and their care.

Inspection areas



Updated 16 August 2016

The service was safe.

People were supported by staff of good character who knew how to protect them from abuse.

People received their medicine safely.

There were sufficient staff with relevant skills and experience to keep people safe.



Updated 16 August 2016

The service was effective.

Sensory equipment and furnishings were being increased to improve the environment and meet people�s individual needs.

People�s needs and preferences were met by staff who had received the training they needed to support them.

Staff met regularly with their line manager for support to identify their learning and development needs and to discuss any concerns.

People had their freedom and rights respected. Staff acted within the law and protected people when they could not make a decision independently.

People were supported to eat a healthy diet. They were helped to see their GP and other health professionals to promote their health and well-being.



Updated 16 August 2016

The service was caring.

People benefitted from a staff team who supported them to sustain family relationships and were committed to ensuring their needs were met.

The relationships between staff and people receiving support demonstrated dignity and respect at all times.



Updated 16 August 2016

The service was not always responsive.

Activities within the home were individual to each person around the choices they had made. However, a lack of activities to meet one person�s changing needs had placed them at risk of isolation.

Staff knew people well and responded quickly to their individual needs.

People�s assessed needs were recorded in their care plans that provided information for staff to support people in the way they wished. These were reviewed continually to promote person centred care.



Updated 16 August 2016

The service was well led.

The registered manager was open and approachable and promoted a positive culture.

Staff had confidence that they would be listened to by the registered manager and that action would be taken if they had a concern about the services provided.

Processes were in place to monitor the quality of the service and the running of the home. These included audits of health and safety and reviews of people's care and support plans.