We carried out a review of the data available to us about Kingsley Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Kingsley Court, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Staff were committed to keeping people safe. They had undertaken additional training and understood the importance of wearing appropriate PPE. There were sufficient stocks available including masks, gloves, aprons and hand sanitiser. Sanitisation and PPE stations were placed around the service and there were appropriate facilities to remove PPE safely.
Staff were wearing their PPE appropriately during our visit. The manager and senior team knew how to access local IPC resources (for example local health protection team or infection control leads) when they need advice and support.
People and staff were taking part in whole home testing. People were supported to make decisions about testing, for example staff considered the best time of day to approach people and how to communicate effectively with them.
Infection prevention and control audits took place and action plans were developed to follow up on any required actions. This ensured the acting manager had effective oversight of infection control measures.
Staff supported people and their relatives to understand the isolation processes and gave consideration as to how the service could help alleviate loneliness and distress during this time. This included talking to the person frequently and supporting telephone and video calls with friends and loved ones.
A booking system was introduced to support visitors. Visits were planned to avoid potential infection transmission with other visitors.
The manager and senior team had discussed contingency plans in the event of any outbreak of Covid-19 or other emergencies. They had been able to cohort staff when people had tested positive. This had reduced the risks associated with cross infection.
At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
People were protected from avoidable harm as staff understood how to recognise signs of abuse and the actions needed if abuse was suspected. There were enough staff to provide safe care and recruitment checks had ensured they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. When people were at risk of falling or skin damage, staff understood the actions needed to minimise avoidable harm. The service was responsive when things went wrong and reviewed practices in a timely manner. Medicines were administered and managed safely by trained staff.
People had been involved in assessments of their care needs and had their choices and wishes respected including access to healthcare when required. Their care was provided by staff who had received an induction and on-going training that enabled them to carry out their role effectively. People had their eating and drinking needs understood and met. Opportunities to work in partnership with other organisations took place to ensure positive outcomes for people using the service. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People and their families described the staff as caring, kind and friendly and the atmosphere of the home as homely. People were able to express their views about their care and felt in control of their day to day lives. People had their dignity, privacy and independence respected.
People had their care needs met by staff who were knowledgeable about how they were able to communicate their needs, their life histories and the people important to them. A complaints process was in place and people felt they would be listened to and actions taken if they raised concerns. People’s end of life wishes were known including their individual spiritual and cultural wishes. The home was in the process of reviewing the activities they offered people and were planning on creating an activity programme.
The service had an open and positive culture that encouraged involvement of people, their families, staff and other professional organisations. Leadership was visible and promoted teamwork. Staff spoke positively about the management and had a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities. Audits and quality assurance processes were effective. The service understood their legal responsibilities for reporting and sharing information with other services.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Kingsley Court is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 17 people in a residential area of Weymouth. At the time of our inspection there were 16 older people living in the home and one person was staying on a short break.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.
Staff understood how people consented to the care they provided and encouraged people to make decisions about their day to day lives. People were not always enabled to make complex decisions about issues such as where they lived and risks they might want to take. This was addressed immediately by the registered manager. Care plans did not all reflect that care was being delivered within the framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when people did not have clear capacity to make decisions for themselves at all times. Staff demonstrated that they understood the importance of enabling people to make day to day decisions and understood the need to provide care that is in a person’s best interests.
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been applied for where a person who needed to live in the home to be cared for safely did not have the mental capacity to consent to this.
Everyone described the food as good and there were systems in place to ensure people had enough to eat and drink. When people needed particular diets or support to eat and drink safely there were systems in place to share this information. This system had not been effective where a person had moved in whilst a chef was on holiday. The chef did not know about the person’s dietary needs but they had not given the person any food that would have put them at risk. The registered manager assured us they would review this and take action to ensure it could not happen again.
Staff were consistent in their knowledge of people’s care needs and spoke confidently about the support people needed to meet these needs. They told us they felt supported in their roles and had training that gave them the necessary knowledge and skills. There was a plan in place to ensure staff received refresher training as deemed necessary by the provider. This included the opportunity for staff to develop their knowledge about areas of care that they were particularly interested in.
People felt safe. They were protected from harm because staff understood the risks people faced and knew how to reduce these risks. They also knew how to identify and respond to abuse. Information about how to report abuse was on a noticeboard in a prominent position available to everyone at Kingsley Court.
People told us they received the care and support they needed at the time they needed it. They also told us they saw health care professionals when necessary and were supported to maintain their health by staff. People’s needs related to ongoing healthcare and health emergencies were met and recorded. People received their medicines as they were prescribed. The temperature was not checked in the areas where unrefrigerated medicines were stored. This put the medicines at risk of not working effectively if these areas became too hot over a period of time. The registered manager told us they would add these areas to their computerised monitoring system.
People were positive about the care they received at Kingsley Court and told us the staff were kind and attentive. Staff were cheerful and treated people and visitors with respect and kindness throughout our inspection. People told us they were confident to share concerns and we saw that complaints were handled to the complainant’s satisfaction.
People enjoyed a range of activities that reflected their preferences. These included individual and group activities both in Kingsley Court and the local community.
Quality assurance systems were in place and had led to improvements being made for people living in Kingsley Court. People, relatives and staff were invited to contribute their views to this process. Staff, relatives and people spoke positively about the management and staff team as a whole.