Kingdom 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 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 changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. The management team and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 68 (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.

This shared direction helped make sure each person was at the centre of their support when decisions about their lives were being made. There was active discussion regarding closed cultures, so if they started to develop, they could be quickly identified. Staff interactions with people were consistently respectful and caring, and people appeared happy and relaxed.

Staff and managers had a good understanding of equality, diversity and human rights, and prioritised safe, high-quality, compassionate care.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

People’s human rights were promoted. The service focussed on how they could enable people to live a good, ordinary life as part of their community.

Managers had the experience, capacity, capability and integrity to make sure that the organisational vision could be delivered and risks are well managed. They were alert to indications of poor culture that may affect the quality of people’s care and have a detrimental impact on staff.

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 provider took steps to remove bias from practice to help make sure equality of opportunity and experience for the workforce. This included ongoing review of policies and procedures to tackle structural and institutional discrimination and bias to achieve a fair culture for all.

Equality and diversity were promoted, and the causes of any workforce inequality were identified, and action was taken to address these. Staff were encouraged to contribute to improvement initiatives.

Leaders encouraged staff to speak up with ideas for improvement and innovation and invested time to listen and engage. The provider had a Diversity Council comprised of a group of staff from different areas of the organisation who set out to educate and promote discussion about equality and diversity to help build a culture of inclusion.

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 provider took steps to remove bias from practice to help make sure equality of opportunity and experience for the workforce. This included ongoing review of policies and procedures to tackle structural and institutional discrimination and bias to achieve a fair culture for all.

Equality and diversity were promoted, and the causes of any workforce inequality were identified, and action was taken to address these. Staff were encouraged to contribute to improvement initiatives.

Leaders encouraged staff to speak up with ideas for improvement and innovation and invested time to listen and engage. The provider had a Diversity Council comprised of a group of staff from different areas of the organisation who set out to educate and promote discussion about equality and diversity to help build a culture of inclusion.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes.

The governance and oversight systems had improved and the areas for improvement we identified at our last assessment had been addressed overall. However, there remained some areas that required strengthening, as risks and environmental issues had not been consistently identified and addressed by the provider’s checks and audits. For instance, a prescribed thickener was stored in an unlocked cupboard in the communal kitchen, despite this requiring locked storage. A prescription thickener is a product that modifies the consistency of liquids to manage dysphagia (difficulty swallowing).

Dishwasher tablets were kept unsecured in the kitchen, rather than stored with other hazardous substances in line with control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH) requirements. Water temperature checks in people’s en-suite shower rooms had not been completed consistently. The use of two separate systems for recording water temperatures made oversight and assurance difficult and increased the risk of gaps being overlooked.

We found people’s en-suite rooms cleaner than at our last assessment, although, 1 person’s shower chair had a build-up of dirt under the seat, which appeared not to have been cleaned thoroughly for some time.

When risks were highlighted during our site visit, members of the management team took immediate action to mitigate them, which demonstrated responsiveness when issues were identified. However, reliance on inspection to identify these issues indicated the provider’s quality assurance processes needed further review, to make sure such risks were identified, monitored and mitigated.

The model of care was not in line with current best practice guidance, ‘Right support, right care, right culture’. The home is larger than best practice guidelines. This was because the service was operating before the guidance was released. The management team were aware of this and focussed on making sure the service had a strong focus on outcomes for people to meet the principles of ‘Right support, right care, right culture’. This meant maximising individual choice, control, and independence and providing person-centred support that upheld people’s dignity, privacy, and human rights. For example, a security gate which had previously been locked was now unlocked, promoting people’s rights, independence, and freedom of movement in line with best practice.

People’s bedrooms were personalised, helping to create a homely environment. There was also ample space in the home for people to have quiet time, away from others, if they wished. One person was waiting to move into a different bedroom they had chosen and told us they were looking forward to their new furniture being delivered.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. The team worked in partnership with key organisations to support care provision and joined-up care. They engaged with a range of partners to support people to thrive and live the life they choose.

Staff and leaders engaged with people, communities and partners to share learning with each other that resulted in continuous improvements to the service. They used these networks to identify new or innovative ideas that could lead to better outcomes for people.

the organisation and local systems. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people.

The team worked with people, their representatives and staff to build a culture that focused on enabling people to enjoy a full life.

The staff members we spoke with told us the provider made sure they received appropriate training to support them in their roles. One staff member told us, “I have had lots and lots of training, online and face to face.”

There were processes to make sure learning happened when things went wrong, and from examples of good practice. Leaders encouraged reflection and collective problem-solving. We saw evidence of information sharing about lessons learned across the provider’s services.