Archived: HF Trust - Kingswalden Villas

Below is a summary of what we found based on the evidence gathered during our inspection carried out on 09 June 2014. This included speaking with people who used the service, some of their relatives and members of staff who supported them and by looking at records.

The detailed evidence that supports our findings can be read in the full report.

Is the service safe?

During our inspection we saw that people were encouraged and supported to express their views and make choices about the care they received. They were provided with information to help them make decisions about how they spent their time and which activities they wanted to take part in, both at the home and in the local community.

We looked at support plans which showed that people's needs and preferences had been assessed, documented and reviewed. These had been personalised and gave staff clear guidance about the care and support they needed. This meant that people experienced safe, effective and appropriate care that met their needs.

During our inspection we walked around the home and found that most areas, including the kitchen, lounge, dining room and conservatory, were clean and smelt fresh. However, we found that some areas we checked had not been maintained to the required standards of cleanliness and hygiene.

For example, carpets in the main office, rear hallway, stairs, first floor landing and a spare bedroom were heavily stained, soiled and visibly dirty in many areas. Staff told us that the carpets, which were threadbare in places, had become very difficult to clean properly.

At the time of our inspection six people lived at the home. We looked at staffing and duty records which showed that arrangements were in place to ensure people's needs were met by sufficient numbers of appropriate staff at all times. Policies and procedures were in place to manage and reduce the impact of staff absences caused by sickness and other unforeseen events.

Is the service effective?

Staff used a range of communication methods, both verbal and non-verbal, to explain the choices available and to encourage people to care for themselves where possible. For example, we observed staff helping people chose what they wanted to eat for lunch by showing them the options available.

We saw that people had been supported to access a wide range of facilities and activities appropriate to their needs in the local community. These included college courses and attendance at resource and activity centres.

Is the service caring?

We saw that staff treated people who lived at the home with dignity and respect. People were supported to express their preferences and, so far as they were able to, participate in making decisions about the care and support they received.

During our inspection we saw that staff treated people in a kind, patient and caring way. They demonstrated a good understanding of people's health, welfare and communication requirements. This meant that care and support was delivered in a way that best suited and met people's individual needs. One person who lived at the home said, 'We get well looked after. I do like living here.'

Is the service responsive?

We looked at the support plans drawn up in respect of two people who lived at the home. These showed that their views and preferences had been taken into account in the planning and delivery of the care and support they received.

We saw that people had been supported to access relevant health care professionals, such as GP's, dentists and opticians, where necessary. An entry in a support plan relating to one person noted, 'Name] is very nervous when they attend dental appointments. They will usually ask for their hand to be held to help calm and reassure them and to enable any treatment to be carried out. [Name] does clean their teeth independently but staff will need to check if they need a new toothbrush.'

Is the service well led?

Staff had produced a document, personalised to each person who lived at the home, designed to support them plan and manage their own finances. This was used to help people budget and make choices about their spending in areas such as toiletries, mobile phones, social activities and travel expenses. This meant that people had been supported to make choices in a way that promoted their independence.

Care was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare. A relative of a person who lived at the home commented, 'They [staff] are wonderful here. They are very kind, helpful and understand [family member]. They are very indulgent of their changing needs; I don't know how they cope but they do. [Family member] is very well looked after here because all of the staff know and understand their needs.'

Records showed that regular meetings had been held with people who lived at the home and members of staff. These were used to obtain their views, comments and suggestions about care practices, the services provided and how the service operated. Records showed that the provider had also used surveys to obtain feedback about the services provided from people who lived at the home, some of their relatives and other stakeholders.

This meant that people had been encouraged to provide their views, comments and opinions about all aspects of the service provided which reduced the risks associated with inappropriate or unsafe care.

We saw people's needs were assessed and appropriate support plans were in place. We found people's support plans were reviewed regularly with their involvement. Where necessary, other health and social care professionals were involved in people's care and treatment.

People consented to their care or treatment and the records were presented in an easy read format to ensure that people understood what they were consenting to.

People's nutritional requirements were met and their choices were respected. Where necessary, they were appropriately referred to other health and social care professionals.

The three people we spoke with were happy with the support they received from staff. One person said that staff were "...helpful."

Care records were in place for each person, which included support plans and risk assessments. These were sometimes lacking in detail about people's specific needs and were not always written in a way that focussed positively on people's strengths and abilities. People said their healthcare needs were met by visits to other healthcare professionals, such as the doctor, optician and dentist.

Medicines were managed well so that people received their medicines safely and as prescribed.

Staff had received a range of training to equip them to do their job, and they told us they had good support from the manager and senior team. The provider had a complaints process in place so that people could raise their concerns. Staff knew they had a responsibility to record any complaints made to them, and to ensure the complaint was passed to the right person to deal with.