• Care Home
  • Care home

Royal Mencap Society - 145 Kingsley Road

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

145 Kingsley Road, Portsmouth, Hampshire, PO4 8HN

Provided and run by:
Royal Mencap Society

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Royal Mencap Society - 145 Kingsley Road is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 8 people. There were 8 people using the service at the time of the assessment.

This is a specialist service for people with a learning disability and autistic people. We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence, and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

We carried out this assessment on 10 and 11 August 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

People were supported by enough staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them safely. Risks were assessed and people were involved in the process. There were effective systems to safeguard people from abuse. Medicines were administered safely. Systems and processes were not always effective to ensure some environmental safety concerns were identified and addressed, although the registered manager took action to resolve these.

People had their needs assessed and the service worked well with other professionals to ensure people’s changing needs were well supported. People's nutrition and hydration needs were met. Staff knew of people’s specific dietary needs in line with their care plans. People who use the service consistently experienced positive outcomes. People’s views and wishes were central to the support they received. Residents’ meetings reflected people’s wishes, views and opinions on subjects, and these were respected and actioned. People and their relatives told us people could make choices around their lives.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions, and they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

Staff and people had positive relationships and interactions. Staff spoke to people with kindness, compassion and dignity. They knew people well and could talk about people’s needs, wishes, likes, dislikes and personal histories spontaneously.

Activities were engaging and meaningful for people both on and off site. They were varied, personalised and people talked positively about what they had done and were planning to do.

Staff responded in the moment to people's wishes and needs, which were at the forefront of staff's attention. Staff communicated well with people and understood their individual communication styles. People were happy and comfortable in staff's presence. People knew how to feedback or raise concerns, and people had the opportunity to speak to senior managers. Staff had the knowledge and skills to identify and address discrimination and inequality.

Staff were positive and told us they felt well supported by the manager and deputy manager who they said were approachable and motivating. There were not always clearly defined roles regarding some responsibilities about the safety and maintenance of the service. A relationship with 1 stakeholder was not always robust and effective to ensure some actions about the physical aspects of the service were always completed in a timely manner. These have now been addressed. Systems and processes were in place to review quality within the service. The registered manager was keen to engage and learn from the inspection. Where issues were identified, they responded swiftly and willingly, and took action to change and improve things. They saw these as an opportunity to learn and improve.

13 June 2018

During a routine inspection

145 Kingsley Road is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and 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.

145 Kingsley Road accommodates eight people with a learning disability in one adapted building. 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. Registering the Right Support CQC policy

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People told us they felt safe living in the home. Relatives agreed that their family members were safe. We saw people were happy and trusted the staff. There were systems and processes in place to minimise risks to people. These included making sure staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.

There were adequate numbers of staff available to meet people's needs in a timely manner. Recruitment checks were completed prior to staff being employed which helped make sure staff employed were of good character.

People enjoyed the food provided and were supported to receive adequate food and drink to remain healthy.

Staff were receiving regular training, supervision and appraisal so they were skilled and competent to carry out their role.

People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

Staff knew the people they were supporting and provided a personalised service. Support plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care. Staff respected the right to confidentiality for people who used the service.

We observed staff the treated people with respect and people’s dignity and privacy was actively promoted by the staff.

A varied range of activities were made available and we saw staff were proactive in engaging people with individual activities of their preferred choice.

Systems were in place to deal promptly and appropriately with any complaints or concerns raised about the service. The registered manager and registered provider treated complaints as an opportunity to learn and improve.

The home was led by an experienced registered manager and management team. The registered provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, seek people's views and make on-going improvements.

The service had an open culture which encouraged communication and learning. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about the service and it was used to ensure continuous improvement. Staff were motivated to perform their roles and worked to empower people to be as independent and as possible.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

1 March 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 1 March 2016 and was unannounced. 145 Kingsley Road provides care and accommodation for up to eight people. The home specialises in the care of people living with learning disabilities.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 told us they liked living at Kingsley Road. One said staff were "I loves it here” and they can talk to staff whenever they feel like it.

We saw that consent was sought from people about their care.

Each person had a plan of care and support. Support plans explained what the person could do for themselves and what support they needed from staff. Staff told us the care and support plans gave them the information they needed to provide the level of support people required.

Staff had an empowering and empathetic attitude to support people and their personal development. Staff had a detailed knowledge of the people they were supporting and understood when it was appropriate to offer additional support and guidance, and when people needed to assess and resolve situations with little support or gentle guidance. Staff were motivated as a team to ensure people flourished.

People were happy with the care and support they received from staff at the home. We saw records that showed us people chose how to spend their time. Care plans reflected people's individual needs and preferences. Staff were respectful and caring and knowledgeable about people's individual needs.

People were safeguarded from abuse because there were suitable policies and procedures in place and staff were trained. People told us they felt safe in the home and that staff supported them to manage their finances.

We saw that medicines were safely stored and administered. Records relating to medicines were clear and up to date.

Staff underwent a comprehensive induction period and ongoing training which enabled them to effectively support people in their care. Staff were able to identify their own training needs and request additional training if needed.

The service had a warm and welcoming atmosphere where people were encouraged to share their views and opinions. Staff interacted with people in a professional and warm manner.

The service had adequate numbers of staff at all time to ensure people’s needs were met.

People were supported to access external health care professionals to ensure their health and wellbeing was monitored and maintained.

The registered manager carried audits on care planning and there was a quality assurance system at the home. Relatives and staff were positive about the service.

The registered manager and the team shared a commitment to providing an excellent service for people and their relatives.

22 January 2014

During a routine inspection

As part of this inspection we spoke to two members of care staff and two people who live at Kingsley Road. We met a third person who lives at Kingsley Road and we observed their care and interaction with staff. We also met and spoke to the registered manager.

We also spoke to representative of Portsmouth City Council.

The people we spoke to said they liked living at Kingsley Road. One said staff were 'Nice and kind' and they can talk to their key worker if they feel upset.

We saw that consent was sought from people about their care. Where someone was assessed as not being able to consent to an aspect of their care, we saw that consent was obtained under the relevant sections of the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

We saw records that showed us people who chose to, had busy lives and were supported on an individual basis to choose how to spend their time. Care plans reflected people's individual needs and preferences. People's diverse needs were respected and recorded in their care plans. We saw good examples of this being handled in a sensitive and caring manner.

We observed people interacting with staff and being offered choices about how to spend their time. There was a relaxed and friendly rapport between staff and people using the service. Staff were respectful and caring and knowledgeable about people's individual needs.

People were safeguarded from abuse because there were suitable policies and procedures in place and staff were trained. People told us they felt safe in the home and that staff supported them to manage their finances.

We saw that medicines were safely stored and administered. Records relating to medicines were clear and up to date.

The home has suitable processes in place to monitor the quality of the service.

5 February 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke to three people who use the service. We also spoke to the manager and to a staff member on duty.

We observed people and staff during the early evening meal. People were relaxed and chatted to each other and to staff. People were involved in helping in the kitchen. We saw that staff ate with the people living at the home and engaged people in conversation.

People told us they liked living at the home. one person said, 'I'm very happy here.' Two people showed us their rooms, which contained their personal belongings.

We saw that each person's needs were comprehensively assessed and that there were detailed care plans of how people's needs were to be met. These were written with the person's needs and preferences as the focus of any planning. Daily social needs as well as health care needs were included. We saw that people were involved in making decisions about their care.

People attended a range of activities outside the home including college courses and work schemes as part of day services. One person told us how they enjoyed their work on an allotment and the pleasure they got from growing vegetables.

The home had policies and procedures regarding the safeguarding of people. Staff were trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults procedures.

The home had sufficient staff to meet people's needs.

The home had a complaints procedure and there was a record that people were asked at a review if they had any complaints.