Archived: Kingsleigh House

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with the staff supporting the people who used the service and from looking at records.

Is the service well-led?

We judged the service to be well led by the registered manager but had concerns about the oversight and clarity of direction by the registered provider

We did not find evidence to indicate that the registered provider had regularly assessed and monitored the quality of the services

We met with the manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission. We saw minutes of regular meetings held with the staff. This showed she consulted with staff regularly to gain their views and experiences and improve support for people who lived at the service.

The registered manager had a quality assurance system, and staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes that were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

Is the service safe?

On the day of the inspection we considered the service to be safe

People told us they felt safe. Systems were in place to help the manager and staff team learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve. Staff showed a good understanding of the care needs of the people they supported.

Kingsleigh alerted the local authority and the Care Quality Commission when notifiable events occurred or they had any concerns regarding people who used the service. Kingsleigh had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS). This helped to ensure that people's needs were met.

Is the service effective?

On the day of the inspection we considered the service to be effective.

People's health and care needs were assessed with them. During our inspection it was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff, that staff had a good understanding of people's needs.

Specialist dietary needs had been identified where required. Care plans were up-to-date.

We saw that there was good liaison and communication with other professionals and agencies to ensure people's care needs were met.

The quality of recording was seen to have improved since our last inspection enabling care staff to use the information correctly.

Is the service caring?

On the day of the inspection we found the service to be caring.

When speaking with staff it was clear that they genuinely cared for the people they supported.

People's preferences and interests had been recorded and life histories were evident.

Kingsleigh had regular support from the local GP practices and other visiting health professionals. This ensured people received appropriate care in a timely way.

Is the service responsive?

On the day of inspection we considered the service to be responsive.

The care records showed evidence of the lifestyle of the people who lived at Kingsleigh and we observed that staff spent one-to-one time with people throughout the day.

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care in a coherent way.

Is the service well-led?

On the day of the inspection we found the service to be well led by the manager.

We met with the manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission. We saw minutes of regular meetings held with the staff. This showed the management consulted with staff regularly to gain their views and experiences and improve support for people who lived at Kingsleigh House.

The service had a quality assurance system. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes that were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

People we spoke to that lived at the home said that their care and welfare needs were being well met. Comments included 'It's good I like it here.' Another person told us 'I like it they take me out.'

There were suitable safe storage facilities for medication and we observed staff administering medicines competently and safely.

People had their comments and complaints listened to and acted upon, without the fear that they would be discriminated against for making a complaint.

One person who used the service told us "I like it here" and another said (whilst we were looking at their room) 'they [the staff] help me keep it this nice and I can choose the colours I like'.

We saw people who used the service were included in developing and reviewing their care plans. We saw they had access to a wide range of activities both in and outside of the home.

We saw staff had safeguarding training and access to up to date policies and procedures. People who used the service mixed with people other than staff at the home and so had opportunities to raised concerns outside of Kingsleigh House if they needed to.

We saw there were staff support systems in place that included time for one to one meetings with the registered manager, staff meetings and ongoing training provision.

We saw people who used the service were included in decisions made about the running of the service. We saw there were systems in place to get feedback from people who used the service, relatives and visiting professionals about the standard of the service provided.

We saw documentation from audits that took place and were told about changes to practice that had resulted from results of an audit.

We saw satisfactory health and safety arrangements were in place and included fire safety checks and cleaning schedules.