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 service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the service 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 previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to their failure to effectively operate systems and processes to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of services provided and mitigate risks to people. At this assessment we saw this was improved, and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation. However, there remained a need to embed the improvements made into practice. This included completing the task of transferring people’s records to an electronic format, so staff and partner professionals could more easily access up to date information about people.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

A staff member told us the service to people had improved since the manager had been in post. They said the manager was supportive and reassuring and there was very positive change.

Although the in-house management team were relatively new, feedback indicated they were establishing themselves well. The manager had been in post since June 2024 and the deputy manager had joined the team more recently. They both had backgrounds in the provision and management of care and support. They promoted a culture where people were at the centre of their care and support when decisions about their lives were being made.

Relatives said there had been a period where there were lots of changes of managers and staff. They went on to say they were happy with and had confidence in the new in-house management team and hoped they were going to stay. One relative said, “There was poor management for a period.” They added, “[The manager] is a breath of fresh air. Things have really improved.”

People and their relatives said leadership had improved. One relative said, “There have been improvements since [the manager] came. He keeps us up to date and is open and honest with us. He has accompanied [my family member] when they have visited and he sends e-mail updates regularly, usually once a month. I have seen a positive change in [my family member’s] mood. They are less anxious and more confident.”

Staff we spoke with told us the managers promoted the values of the provider organisation. One staff member told us they felt confident to ask if they needed guidance. They said the manager provided guidance and direction, and explained things well.

Although they both had backgrounds in the provision and management of care, the manager and deputy manager had not previously worked in services for people with learning disabilities and people with autism and they were working to develop their skills, knowledge, and experience in this area. There was evidence of improvement in the management of the service, although these needed to be sustained and embedded into practice.
 

Staff told us they were encouraged to share their views, and they felt they were listened to.

There was regular engagement with people and those close to them and their feedback was used to improve the service. Relatives described good communication with the service, which enabled them to express any concerns or make suggestions, which the managers listened to and responded to. There was a focus on supporting people to thrive and live the life they chose.

The provider had a complaints and compliments process in place and there was information for people about how to complain provided in an accessible format. There were policies in place on safeguarding and whistleblowing and staff were aware of how to whistle blow should the need arise.

The provider promoted workforce diversity and had systems in place to support any protected characteristics staff may have. Staff spoke positively about the support they received and gave examples of when additional support had been given to meet their personal circumstances. A staff member described the staff team as being respectful of each other.

The provider had policies and procedures in place regarding equality, diversity and inclusion. Systems were in place to provide support for people with protected characteristics. Staff were provided with contracts of employment which gave them information about their rights and training was provided on Equality and Diversity.

Discussion with managers and staff showed a lack of clarity in the team about where responsibilities lay in respect of monitoring and maintaining cleanliness in the home, particularly in the kitchen. At our second visit we found some improvements in this aspect of quality and risk management. Although, there was a need for these changes to be embedded into practice.

We saw improvement in the management of the service, although there remained room to improve areas of the oversight and quality assurance systems. For example, the systems of audit had not identified the shortfalls we found in cleanliness. After the assessment the manager addressed the shortfalls in delegation of cleaning tasks and strengthened the audit process in this area to ensure continued improvement. This included implementing the provider’s preferred food safety management system and increasing unannounced night time monitoring visits by managers.

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. Leaders were aware of this and made sure the management and staff team had a strong focus on outcomes for people to meet the principles of ‘Right support, right care, right culture’. Work was in progress to make the environment more personalised and homely for people.

When we asked people if they felt the service was well led they spoke positively about their experience.

The management team understood their role in collaborating and working in partnership. They shared information with partners and focussed on learning and improvement, although time was needed to ensure improvements were sustained and embedded.

Feedback from a representative of the local authority about a recent visit was positive overall. They found the manager was making progress with uploading people’s information to the new, electronic system, although there was still some work to complete.

A partner professional told us, “The current manager is trying to put things into place. I can see that, and they try to keep me updated most of the time. There have been improvements.” They went on to say staff seemed to need further support to encourage and enable one person to go out more and try new things. We discussed this with the manager who told us they continued to support the team in working positively with the person. They told us they would discuss this further with partner professionals.

Feedback from relatives, staff and other professionals referenced staff turnover and the impact of this but also indicated this was improving. The manager and deputy manager were enthusiastic about taking the service forward. They focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement. However, due to the scale of improvements needed, they were working through priorities and actions at the time of our assessment. These included changes to the in-house quality assurance systems, developing the team, development of people’s care and support and environmental improvements.

There had been several changes to the management at the home, with the manager and deputy manager were relatively new in post. They were working to introduce improvement. However, there was a need to sustain improvements made, for them to be embedded into practice. There was a need to complete the work required to introduce the new electronic records and care planning system. Feedback from relatives, staff and other professionals referenced staff turnover and the impact of this but also indicated this was improving. The manager and deputy manager were enthusiastic about taking the service forward. They focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement. However, due to the scale of improvements needed, they were working through priorities and actions at the time of our assessment. These included changes to the in-house quality assurance systems, developing the team, development of people’s care and support and environmental improvements.

Relatives told us the manager had addressed issues and made improvements since their appointment. One relative said, “[The manager] has totally turned things around. He addresses issues. I honestly can’t find anything wrong at the moment. [My family member] doesn’t like change, but has reacted well to [the manager] and is settled and happy. Everything is rosy.”