Kingsley

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to seeking and acting on feedback and providing information in formats accessible to people.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The registered manager and staff made sure people were at the centre of their care choices. Staff decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff supported people to take part in activities that promoted social interaction, engagement, and skill development. People told us about the activities they had taken part in and explained to us what they had done and how they had enjoyed it. Some people regularly attended day services where they took part in different activities and spent time with their friends. Other people took part in pastimes they enjoyed at home and in their local community. Everyone told us they had enjoyed going out for breakfast a few weeks before our visit and were looking forward to doing this again.

The registered manager understood the diverse health and care needs of people so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People were supported by a small group of staff who knew them well. Most of the staff, including the registered manager, had worked at the service for many years. We observed staff supporting people in a consistent way which helped people to understand what they needed to do and when. Staff followed people’s preferred routines and were flexible to any changes people wanted to make. People received consistent support and told us staff gave them the support they needed when they wanted it.

The provider did not supply information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. All organisations that provide NHS or adult social care are required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The standard aims to make sure that people who have a disability, impairment or sensory loss are provided with information that they can easily understand. The provider was not meeting the Accessible Information Standard.

People’s care plans were not in formats which were accessible to them such as easy read with pictures or photographs. The provider planned to introduce an electronic care records system which would include easy read documents but these were not yet in place. Other information, such as how to make a complaint or raise a concern was not easily available to people so they could refer to it when they wanted. For example, easy read documents with pictures of the staff they could raise concerns with. The service user guide did not contain pictures of the service to support people to understand what the service was like. The registered manager told us the easy read documents the provider had in place were not accessible to people using the service. Following our assessment the provider sent us easy read care plans and other documents they had put in place following our feedback.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback about their care and support. The registered manager chatted with people about their care and support to check they were happy. No records of these conversations were maintained, so they could be reviewed to ensure any required actions had been completed and had been effective.

No formal processes were in place to gather and analyse feedback about the service from people and their representatives. People completed adhoc surveys with a staff member and there was a risk they would not be confident to share their experiences or raise concerns with someone who provided their supported frequently. No analysis of the feedback received had been completed to drive improvements.

The provider had a policy in place to analysis any feedback they received. However, they did not have a proactive process in operation to regularly request feedback from people, their representatives, staff and professionals. The provider had not acted to understand how people felt about their support and make any necessary changes. Following our assessment the provider told us they had put a system in place.

No complaints had been received about the service since 2022. The registered manager spoke with people frequently to check they had no complaints and was in regular contact with people’s representatives. Any niggles were addressed promptly to stop them escalating.

The provider made sure that people could access the care and support they needed when they needed it.

The registered manager told us they had requested the provider deploy a different vehicle at the service as the current vehicle was not big enough to carry one person’s mobility aid. Staff booked accessible community transport to support the person attend appointments and go out and about locally.

The registered manager had identified when changes needed to be made to the environment to support people to continue to be independent as their needs changed. For example, people’s ensuite bathrooms had been adapted to be accessible when their mobility needs changed, and people continued to be as independent as possible.

The provider had not considered the needs of people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes.

A vehicle was available for staff to use when supporting people to attend appointments or to go out and about. The vehicle was covered in the provider’s branding which made people stand out from other members of their community and put them at risk of discrimination. Following our assessment the provider told us the branding had been removed.

The service was situated in a residential street. The building and grounds had not been maintained and the front of the building was tatty. Commercial bins were stored in the front garden and the house stood out from others in the street. this did not support people to live an ordinary life as any other citizen. Following our assessment the provider told us action had been taken to improve the front of the service.

People and those important to them had been asked about any plans they for important life changes, so they there was enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People and their representatives had chosen not to engage in these discussions. However, staff knew about people’s cultural and spiritual needs and knew how these would be met at the end of people’s lives.