You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 June 2017

This inspection took place on 29 March and 6 April 2017. The first day was unannounced and the second day was an agreed date to ensure people and staff were available to talk to.

Kingsley house provides specialist care and support to younger adults who have autism and learning disabilities. It is run by the National Autistic Society (NAS) and is registered to support up to 19 people living in small flats and houses on one site. The service does not provide nursing care. At the time of the inspection there were 10 people living at the service.

The last inspection completed in January 2015 we rated this service as good with requires improvement in effective as we did not feel the environment was age appropriate.

There was a registered manager running the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Kingsley House offered people a service which was highly personalised and took into account people’s complex needs due to their autism. Staff were exceptionally skilled at working with people in the least restrictive way to promote their rights and empower them to live fulfilling lives. Staff were proud of their achievements in assisting people to develop their independent living skills and celebrated successes with each other and those who lived at the service. For example, they emailed good news stories about the accomplishments people had achieved.

We found the registered manager and management team to be open honest and transparent. The environment and atmosphere was inclusive and everybody was treated as an individual and was valued.

The manager demonstrated that they continually looked for ways to make improvements so that people who used the service benefited from exceptional care and expertise. Staff were skilled at understanding people’s needs and unique ways of communicating. The provider had employed a speech and language therapist to work alongside the care staff to enable them to develop the best ways of assisting people to communicate. This was by way of symbols, pictures and photos. This type of media was extensively used in everyday working, to help people to make sense of what was happening and what was being asked of them. They also used social stories to help people process information and prepare for events. For example the registered manager prepared a social story for people to help them understand about the inspection process, our visit to the service and what questions we might ask.

The staff team worked in innovative ways to ensure their skills were utilised to the best effect. For example one care worker was a skilled musician and they were given time to share this skill in providing music sessions for people. Another care worker had been assisted to gain trampoline qualifications to enable them to provide this activity for people safely.

People’s safety was considered in every aspect of their care and support. Risks were well documented. Medicines were safely managed. The provider operated safe recruitment processes to ensure only staff who were suitable to work with vulnerable people were employed.

Care and support was really well planned and person centred. Support plans for people were very detailed and ensured staff were providing a consistent approach. Support plans focussed on positive aspects of people. They were reviewed with people and those who were important to them. Where people needed additional support to ensure their own safety and that of others, this was done in a sensitive and caring way. When people showed expressive behaviours, staff looked at why they may be showing this behaviour and looked at what they could do to provide more positive reinforcement and ensure people had the rig

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 June 2017

The service was safe.

It was clear people felt safe living at the service. Staff managed risk in positive ways to enable people to lead more fulfilling lives.

Staff knew about their responsibilities to safeguard people and to report

suspected abuse.

People were supported by enough staff to receive appropriate care. Robust recruitment procedures were followed to ensure only appropriate staff were recruited to work with vulnerable people.

People received their medicines on time and in a safe way.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 June 2017

The service was effective.

People were cared for by skilled and experienced staff. Training was seen as key to ensuring people received the most effective care and treatment.

The service had used innovative assistive technology to promote the most effective way to assist people with their communication.

The design, layout and furnishing of the service had fully considered the needs of people and staff to provide the most effective care.

People’s consent to care and treatment was sought. Staff confidently used the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and understood how these applied to their practice.

People were supported to eat a well-balanced diet and they had access to health professionals to make sure they kept as healthy as possible

Caring

Good

Updated 9 June 2017

The service was caring.

People received care from staff who developed positive, caring and compassionate relationships with them.

Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity and supported them sensitively with their personal care needs.

People were supported to express their views and be involved in decision making in meaningful ways.

Responsive

Outstanding

Updated 9 June 2017

The service was exceptionally responsive.

People received person centred care from staff who knew each person, about their life and what mattered to them. Care, treatment and support plans were highly personalised.

People were encouraged to socialise, pursue their interests and hobbies and try new things. Their views were actively sought, listened to and acted on.

People were partners in their care, care records were individual, personalised and comprehensive.

People and their relatives knew how to raise concerns which were listened and responded to positively to make further service improvements.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 June 2017

The service was well-led.

The management team led by example and promoted a strong sense of wanting to continually improve.

People were at the heart of what mattered. People’s views were sought and taken into account in how the service was run and made changes and improvements in response to feedback.

The culture of the home was open, friendly and welcoming. People, staff and visiting professionals expressed confidence in the management team.

There were robust and effective systems to review and improve on the quality of care and support, taking into account the views of people and staff.