Kingston House

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 remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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

People’s care plans were detailed and sufficiently informative to enable staff to meet people’s individual needs. The service used a digital system care planning and record keeping system, and staff told us this system worked well and that the information provided was accurate and up to date. Staff comments included, “I think there is enough information in the care plan” and “The app is ok”.

Accurate records were maintained of the care and support each person received each day, with some information about how people had chosen to spend their time and the activities they had engaged with.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service worked effectively and in collaboration health system partners to ensure people’s needs were met. The registered manager had appropriately sought advice and guidance from involved professionals and acted upon the information received. Staff told us, “We had an Occupational Therapist come out to do and assessment and have come up with a solution that is working”. Staff reported these changes had impacted positively on people’s wellbeing.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Relatives told us the service provided information effectively and commented, "They send me regular updates via a message" and “They message me every day and give photo updates, that is nice”.

Staff communicated effectively with people while providing support and were able to understand people’s communications and requests. People’s care plans included information on how to recognise and interpret people’s communication. Staff told us, “[Person’s name] has a good level of understanding, you can ask [them] to do something and [they] know what you mean”.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Staff communicated effectively with people and responded positively to their requests to engage in activities. One person became interested in what staff were doing in the kitchen during the morning of our assessment. Staff encouraged and supported this person into the kitchen to help them prepare a desert.

The service had systems to gather feedback from people’s relatives and processes to ensure any complaints received were fully investigated and resolved. Relatives were complimentary of the service’s communication and confident any issue they raised would be resolved. They told us, “I am in contact with them most days”.

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

There were sufficient staff available to support people to access the community and activities they enjoyed. Care records demonstrated people regularly went out and were supported to engage with activities thy enjoyed. However, as only 2 staff were able to drive this sometimes-limited people’s access to the community. The registered manager was aware of this issue and was attempting to recruit additional drivers.

Staff and the registered manager worked collaboratively with heath care professionals to ensure people could access specialist support when required.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People were supported to access the local community and trips to visit local attractions were arranged regularly. Staff told us, “We give [people] the best opportunities they can have”, “Went for a walk earlier and got pasties for lunch” and “It’s nice to get [people] out and seeing them enjoying things. It's rewarding”.

During the morning of our assessment one person was particularly enjoying a game that staff had designed in response to their individual needs and abilities. The person was laughing throughout, and they and their support staff took great pleasure from this activity. The staff team had worked with involved healthcare professionals to develop activities designed to enable one person to access exercise. Staff described the positive impact this activity had on the person’s independence and wellbeing. Tailored activities had been developed for each person the service supported, and we observed people enjoying these activities during both site visits.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

At the time of the assessment the service was not providing support to people at the end of their lives. The service had previously been able to provide effective support and care for people at the end of their lives, ensuring people’s family members were kept well updated and supported.