Kingswood House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 43 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. The provider did have systems in place to involve people and their relatives in care plans and reviews. However, information from these activities was not used effectively by the service to ensure the care delivered was in line with people’s preferences or followed best practice in relation to reducing restrictive practices.

There were significant shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was not joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. We could not be assured staff had the correct knowledge and skills to support people in line with their agreed plans of care. The provider did take some immediate actions to upskill staff in relation to specific health needs at the service, however, deficiencies remained in relation to reducing restrictive practices. Commissioners had raised concerns about the service’s ability to adequately assess people’s needs and record important information about incidents. The provider had not made significant progress in these areas despite concerns having been raised with them.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service had recognised the need to have easy to read versions of care plans available in formats tailored to individuals so they could access their care records, however, work to implement these documents was not evidenced in care records. Deficiencies in the care management system used by the service meant additional records could not be uploaded and it was unclear if work had been completed to support people to understand their care and support. Relatives told us there were significant communication issues at the service and multiple attempts had to be made to share and receive information.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. Although the service did have processes in place to involve people in care reviews and community meetings, the information from these activities did not translate into meaningful action which made people feel listened to. People told us of issues raised multiple times which had taken too long to address. People told us, “The food is shocking, there’s too much spice in it.” and, “The chairs and furniture are horrible, the television has bad reception.” and, “It looks like a hospital and it’s not flexible. I can’t move things about in my room.”

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service did not ensure that people accessed important appointments consistently. Relatives gave multiple examples of poor organisation and communication at the service which had led to people missing or being late for appointments. Relatives also gave examples of important information or items not being taken to appointments as required.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. Records did not evidence that people were consistently supported to work towards goals and achieve things important to them. For example, where people required support to be ready and pack important items to take out of the service with them, staff did not always make sure these tasks were completed which impacted on the person’s ability undertake activities important to them. Some people faced barriers to going out into the community at a time of their choosing due to service led practices in relation to staffing rotations.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. The service was not supporting anyone on end-of-life care so this could not be assessed. Records did not evidence people had been supported to plan for their future goals or make meaningful progress towards achieving personal aspirations. Some peoples care plans contained generic and task-centred goals which were not person centred. Poor record keeping resulted in an inability to assess people’s progress within the service.