You are here

Kensington Lodge Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 26 September 2019

About the service

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

Kensington Lodge is a residential care home providing personal care. It is an adapted period building over four floors. The service is a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 15 people. Eleven people were using the service at the time of the inspection. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The provider’s and registered manager’s lack of knowledge regarding regulation and legislation meant concerns were found at this inspection. Effective governance procedures were not in place and the registered manager was not given the time nor resources to fully perform their role. This had resulted in people being placed at risk of harm in some aspects of their lives.

Some risks to people were not effectively managed, including those associated with legionella, hot water and fire. The individual risks to people had not been consistently reviewed and assessed and there was no analysis in place for accidents and incidents. Allegations of abuse had not always been identified and managed appropriately. There was a lack of effective procedures in place for staff recruitment, which meant the provider could not fully assure themselves of staff’s suitability for their role.

Audits in place to monitor and assess the service and drive improvement had failed and where concerns had been identified, there was sometimes a delay in rectifying those issues. Where professionals had made recommendations to improve the service, these had not been consistently acted upon. Management and staff were not fully aware of their responsibilities and their knowledge in some areas was poor.

People received a person-centred service because the staff that supported them knew them well. However, care plans did not reflect the care delivered and contained little person-centred information; some aspects of people’s lives had not been planned for. Whilst people received support for planned activities, there were not enough staff to support them with unplanned events and people told us they would like to do more.

The service had not consistently applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence. This was because people were limited in accessing the community when they wished due to not enough available staff to support them to do so.

There was, however, a positive and encouraging culture at the service and people were treated with respect. The staff team and those that used the service worked together to run the home and their views were sought as was those of others. People told us they liked the staff and that they were kind to them; our observations confirmed this. Independence was encouraged and supported, and people’s confidence had

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 26 September 2019

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 26 September 2019

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 26 September 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 26 September 2019

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 26 September 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.