Kingsmith Care

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

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

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 79 (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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People received care based on comprehensive assessments that were reviewed when needs changed. Staff recognised deterioration and sought additional advice and specialist input to ensure support remained appropriate and safe.

The provider assessed people's physical health, mobility, communication, sensory needs, risks and personal preferences and used this information to develop personalised care plans. Assessments were updated when people experienced changes in health or independence, and care plans reflected current needs and outcomes.

People and their relatives described how staff regularly monitored and reviewed needs. One relative said, “One of the care workers noticed [person] was a little different. They got on to the doctor straight away," demonstrating staff's ability to identify changes in need and respond promptly.

For one person, staff identified concerns regarding deteriorating eyesight and contacted healthcare professionals to request specialist assessment. The provider monitored progress, supported attendance at appointments and incorporated outcomes into care planning and risk management arrangements.

Records demonstrated referrals were made appropriately when people experienced changes in mobility, communication, continence, sensory needs or wellbeing. Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed following specialist input to ensure support reflected current needs.

These arrangements helped ensure people's assessed needs informed care delivery and that support remained responsive when circumstances changed.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation. They worked to develop evidence-based good practice and standards.

People received care and treatment informed by current professional guidance and specialist advice. Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals and implemented recommendations consistently to support safe and effective outcomes.

The provider ensured specialist guidance was translated into practice. For one person, staff sought support from Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) following concerns about swallowing difficulties. Recommendations relating to food textures, fluids, positioning and mealtime support were incorporated into care delivery and communicated promptly to all staff involved in the person's care. This reduced the risk of choking and ensured support remained consistent with current clinical advice.

For another person, occupational therapy and physiotherapy recommendations informed changes to moving and handling arrangements, equipment use and environmental safety measures following deterioration in mobility and increased falls risk. Staff acted promptly on professional advice and adapted support arrangements to reduce risks while maintaining independence wherever possible.

The provider also ensured staff had the skills and competence required to deliver specialist care safely. Observed practice and competency assessments were completed for delegated healthcare tasks and specialist procedures, including PEG support, providing assurance that treatment was delivered consistently and in line with professional guidance.

People benefited from care and treatment that consistently reflected recognised best practice and specialist advice, helping to ensure support remained safe, effective and responsive to changing needs.

The provider worked exceptionally well with healthcare professionals, community services and partner organisations to coordinate care and improve outcomes. Staff actively shared information sought specialist advice and contributed meaningfully to multidisciplinary decision-making.

Healthcare professionals described communication as highly effective. One professional told us communication with the provider was “very good, which is unusual in the sector" and reported receiving responses to clinical questions within 24 hours. They explained staff knew people well and frequently provided detailed information about people's needs and day-to-day functioning that helped inform clinical assessments, treatment decisions and care planning.

For another person, staff worked alongside family members, advocates, Continuing Healthcare representatives and healthcare professionals during funding assessments and reviews. Care plans, risk assessments and daily records were shared appropriately to help ensure decisions reflected the person's needs and circumstances.

Professionals told us staff often recognised changes in people's health and support needs and provided information that helped guide decision-making. This collaborative approach helped ensure care remained coordinated, responsive and informed by the most up-to-date professional advice.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported to maintain their health, wellbeing and independence through personalised care, community participation and access to healthcare services. Staff encouraged people to remain active and involved in activities that were important to them.

Care plans promoted nutrition, hydration, mobility, personal care and community involvement. Staff supported people to attend social activities, maintain relationships and access opportunities that reduced isolation and promoted wellbeing.

For one person, care arrangements were reviewed and adjusted to support continued attendance of community-based activities. This enabled the person to remain socially active and continue activities he enjoyed.

A relative told us, "They have taken [person] swimming. [Person] loves it. They have taken [person] to two clubs. [Person] plays bingo and on Thursdays they found another club for them and take [person] to concerts." This demonstrated how staff supported people to remain active, socially connected and engaged in activities that were meaningful to them.

The provider also supported people to access healthcare services when needs changed. Records showed staff arranged referrals, liaised with professionals and supported attendance at appointments, helping people receive timely healthcare assessment and intervention.

These arrangements helped people maintain independence, remain engaged with their communities and access support to promote their health and wellbeing.

The provider monitored people's health, wellbeing and changing needs and reviewed care arrangements to ensure support remained effective. Information from reviews, assessments and healthcare professionals was used to update care and identify opportunities for improvement.

Managers maintained oversight through care reviews, quality checks, observations and communication with people, relatives and professionals. Care plans, risk assessments and support arrangements were reviewed when needs changed or new information became available.

Specialist recommendations from healthcare professionals were incorporated into care planning and shared with staff. Reviews considered areas such as mobility, communication, nutrition, continence, medicines and personal care to ensure support remained aligned with people's needs.

People and relatives provided positive feedback about the support they received, and records demonstrated care plans were adapted following reviews and reassessments.

Relatives told us the support had improved people's wellbeing and enabled them to maintain their independence. One relative said, "It's improved [person]’s quality of life. [Person] is 102 years old."

This demonstrated how the service helped people achieve outcomes that enhanced their quality of life and enabled them to remain living in their preferred environment.

The provider demonstrated exceptional understanding of consent, Mental Capacity Act 2005 principles and human rights.

Leaders actively promoted a rights-based culture where autonomy, choice and least restrictive practice were central to decision making. Staff received MCA training, knowledge checks, thematic supervision and ongoing support through dedicated Mental Capacity and Human Rights Champions.

Training reinforced the importance of presuming capacity, recognising unwise decisions, supporting communication and ensuring decisions were person specific. Staff were confident in applying the MCA and explaining how capacity should be assessed and supported.

The provider also demonstrated strong practice where capacity was lacking. For one person, a specific capacity assessment, best-interest decision making process, clinical consultation and least restrictive approach were used prior to covert administration of medication.

The provider actively sought creative ways to maximise decision making. Care plans for people with communication difficulties demonstrated how staff should use non-verbal communication, visual prompts, choices and environmental supports to involve people in decisions.

People were supported to make decisions about their care and were involved in how their support was planned and delivered. One person confirmed they were involved in decisions about their care, telling us, “Yes," when asked whether they were involved in decisions about their care. Another person told us, “Yes they do," when asked whether staff listened to what was important to them.

Relatives also described being involved in care reviews and discussions about support arrangements. One relative said, “I don't have formal meetings. We make changes based on discussion. I would not want to have formal meetings." This demonstrated the service adapted its approach to involvement and consent in line with people's preferences. Another relative confirmed their ongoing involvement in reviews, telling us, “Yes, annually and internally if things need signing off." These examples showed people and those important to them were consulted and involved in decisions about their care and support.

People were empowered to exercise choice and control wherever possible, while those lacking capacity remained at the centre of decision making.