Archived: Kingfisher House

We spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager and with ten staff on duty. We spoke with 15 people that lived there and four people's relatives. We observed staff interactions with some people in the home. Our conversations with people helped us to answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? and, Is the service well led?

The detailed evidence supporting our summary can be read in our full report.

Is the service safe?

Prior to our inspection we had received concerning information about the safeguarding of people that lived at Kingfisher House. During this inspection we found no evidence to support the information received.

All of the people that we spoke with told us that they felt safe at the home. One person told us, 'The staff are nice people, they get the job done. I do feel safe here.'

Another person told us, 'I feel safe and I would speak out if I was not happy about something.'

All of the relatives that we spoke with told us that they believed their family member was safe at the home.

There was a system in place to record accidents and incidents. Staff spoken with showed that they were aware of the reporting system. We saw that the provider looked at any accidents that occurred so that appropriate action to reduce the risk of the reoccurrence of accidents or incidents.

There was a system in place to handle concerns and complaints. One relative told us, 'I've no complaints.' All of the people that lived there told us they would discuss any concerns with staff if they had any.

As part of our inspection we asked the provider about how they implemented the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The registered manager told us that this was working progress. They showed us that they had the paperwork ready to complete but this had not yet been done. We saw that referrals for some people had not been made when needed under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This meant that although the registered manager was aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards referrals had not yet been made for people that may have required them.

Is the service effective?

All of the staff spoken with demonstrated that they were aware of people's identified needs and how people should be supported to meet these. We observed positive interactions between staff and people.

We saw that people were supported to take part in individual activities that they had decided they wanted to do. We observed a Church service that took place. One person told us, 'It is very important for me that I can attend the Church services.' We also saw activity sessions take place and some individual hand and foot massages. One person told us, 'I am going to the museum in Birmingham. I am looking forward to it.' This meant that people took part in meaningful activities.

Is the service caring?

All of the people that we spoke with told us that they were happy there. One person told us, 'The staff are kind'. During our inspection we observed that people were relaxed with staff and positive interactions took place.

One relative told us, 'I think staff are caring. I do not live locally so the staff phone me every few days and keep me informed about things I need to know about.'

People that used the service and their relatives were asked for feedback about the quality of the service provided.

Is the service responsive?

All of the people spoken with told us that they felt the service met their needs. One person told us, 'I am settled here. I feel that my care needs are met. I used to have difficulties with one chair as I kept slipping down in it, but I have a new chair now which is much better for me.'

Is the service well led?

We saw documented evidence that showed that the provider worked with other

health care professionals and made referrals to, for example dieticians and speech and language therapists, for advice and guidance when needed.

The registered manager told us that some checks, such as staff spot checks and daily logs, were completed informally and not documented. They told us that they planned to build upon their quality assurance systems and would document their checks, such as their audit on daily logs. We looked at some documented audits such as a medication check and saw that this was effective.

Staff spoken with told us that they found the registered manager supportive.

The people we spoke with were satisfied with the care and support that they received at the home. People told us that they were treated with respect and that their dignity was maintained. People told us, 'All the staff treat you with respect' and 'It's a great relief to my family that I am being well cared for."

The relatives of people we spoke with were also complimentary about the home. One relative told us, 'I would certainly recommend this place to someone with similar problems.'

We found the quality of care people received was good and staff interactively positively with people who used the service. Although we did find the availability of activities was sometimes limited.

The home was well maintained and provided a safe environment for people who used the service.

Processes for the recruitment of staff helped to ensure that people were cared for by suitably skilled and experience staff.

Systems were in place to monitor how the service was run and ensure people received a quality service.

The relatives that we spoke with were satisfied with the care that was provided. One relative told us 'The staff are excellent, they can't do enough.' Another relative said 'I think it's a nice home.' However the lack of appropriate activities was raised by both people using the service and their relatives. One relative described it as the homes 'downside'.

During our visit we observed care being given and saw staff calmly and respectfully tending to people's needs. People were given choice's about the food they ate and were satisfied that they had enough to eat and drink. People's care records were well maintained and provided staff with the guidance needed to support the people using the service.

The staff were given adequate training and support to undertake their role. The provider supported staff to undertake further training and provided regular supervision.