Kingston House

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care. The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance.

This service scored 57 (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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

People’s relatives were complimentary of the service, its culture and the quality of care people received. They told us, “I have always been very grateful that I found Kingston House when I did, they are very good” and “I am really happy with them”.

The service’s culture was positive, inclusive and supportive. People were relaxed and comfortable in their home and their staff were responsive and attentive. Staff told us they enjoyed people’s company and we observed warm and supportive interactions between people and their staff. Staff told us, “I like working here, it's more like a family” and “I think there is a nice vibe. Nice and friendly, very inviting”.

The provider’s director visited the service regularly and knew people and staff well. People greeted the director warmly during the assessment and were excited and happy that the director had visited.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. However, managers were not constantly empowered to address and resolve issue identified.

The service recruited a full-time registered manager following our previous assessment. Relatives, staff and the directors were consistently complimentary of the registered manager’s approach and leadership. Relatives told us, “The manager is very pleasant, very friendly and easy to talk to” and “The manager has always been pleasant with us”.

Staff said they were well supported by their registered manager who was approachable and spoke with them regularly. Staff comments included, “The manager is really nice, very calm, easy to talk to” and “The manager is amazing”.

The director was complimentary of the registered manager’s approach and told us, “Staff are well motivated. [The registered manager] does not hide away and that has helped staff relationships, and it is just a happier place to be”. The registered manager told us they were well supported by the provider’s directors and commented, “It is very rare a day goes past and we do not talk”.

However, the registered manager was not fully empowered to address and promptly resolve issues audits had identified. For example, audits had identified for over 6 months that the service’s policies were out of date and required review and updating. The manager had raised this repeatedly with the directors who were responsible for updating policies. When directors failed to promptly complete the necessary reviews, the registered manager had not felt sufficiently empowered to take action to resolve an identified issue.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The registered manager spoke regularly with people’s relatives, and their feedback was welcomed and encouraged. There were procedures to ensure any complaints received were fully investigated.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The registered manager valued the diversity of their workforce and treated staff fairly and with respect. Staff told us they were well supported and enjoyed their role in supporting people’s independence.

The provider did not have systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider’s quality assurance and auditing processes remained ineffective and had failed to ensure all issues previously identified had been addressed. Although significant improvements to the service’s overall performance were identified during this assessment, action had not been taken to fully resolve issues previously identified.

Governance systems had again failed to ensure all necessary, pre-employment checks were completed to make sure staff were suitable for employment in the care sector.

Failures in relation to the safety of the service’s electrical system had not been promptly resolved and risks, previously identified in the service’s environment, had not been appropriately mitigated or addressed. These governance fallings meant people continued to be unnecessarily exposed to risk of harm.

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement.

The service had not consistently worked in partnership with the local authority and had failed to promptly resolve issues, including the lack of radiator covers, raised during quality assurance visits. This meant people had been exposed to risk and opportunities to improve performance had been missed.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The service had failed to promptly address and fully resolve issues raised during previous assessment processes and had not made effective continuous improvement.

In addition, people’s care plans lacked information about individual goals and aspirations. This meant opportunities to identify new interests or support people to gain additional skills could be missed. Last summer one person had been supported to go surfing, an experience the person had very much enjoyed. No further arrangements had been made to enable this person to go again.