You are here

Archived: Kingfisher Court Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 2 June 2016

This unannounced comprehensive inspection took place on 27 April 2016. The last inspection took place on 19 June 2014. The service was meeting the requirements of the regulations at this time.

Kingfisher Court is a care home which offers nursing care and support for up to 13 people. The service is purpose built to provide specialist accommodation and rehabilitation facilities for those with acquired brain injury and associated neurological conditions. At the time of the inspection there were 12 people living at the service.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

We walked around the service which was spacious, airy and comfortable. Each person’s room was ensuite and personalised to reflect their individual tastes. People received very personalised care and were treated with kindness, compassion and respect.

We looked at how medicines were managed and administered. We found it was possible to establish if people had received their medicine as prescribed. Regular medicines audits were consistently identifying if any errors occurred.

The service had identified the numbers of staff required to meet people’s needs and these were being met. Some people required one to one support from staff throughout the day and we saw this was provided.

Staff were supported by a system of induction training, supervision and appraisals. Staff knew how to recognise and report the signs of abuse. Staff received training relevant for their roles and there were good opportunities for on-going training and support and development. More specialised training specific to the needs of people using the service was provided. For example, epilepsy care, continence and stoma care and care of people with acquired brain injury.

Staff meetings were held regularly. These allowed staff to air any concerns or suggestions they had regarding the running of the service and share information related to people living at the service.

Meals were appetising and people were offered a choice in line with their dietary requirements and preferences. Where necessary staff monitored what people ate to help ensure they stayed healthy. One person who had specific dietary needs had requested and was being provided with the necessary equipment in their room to enable them to prepare some of their own meals.

The registered manager, deputy manager and all staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Applications had been made for authorisations for potentially restrictive care plans. Authorisations had been granted for people to be deprived of their liberty so that they could be cared for safely. The service had robust processes and procedures in place to monitor when reviews of these authorisations were due.

Care plans were well organised, detailed and contained accurate and up to date information. Care planning was reviewed regularly and people’s changing needs recorded. People were involved in the planning of their own care and where appropriate, relatives were included.

Activities were provided on a one to one basis by staff according to each person’s needs and interests. People were supported to have good access to the local community and were able to take part in varied activities that they enjoyed.

The registered manager was supported by the provider through regular telephone conversations and meetings. At the service support was provided by the deputy manager and a motivated team of nurses and senior care staff. Some staff had worked at the service for some time and all staff told us they enjoyed their work and felt they were a good team.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 2 June 2016

The service was safe. People told us they felt safe using the service.

Staff knew how to recognise and report the signs of abuse. They knew the correct procedures to follow if they thought someone was being abused.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet the needs of people who used the service.

Care plans recorded risks that had been identified in relation to people�s care and these were appropriately managed

Effective

Good

Updated 2 June 2016

The service was effective. People received care from staff who knew people well, and had the knowledge and skills to meet their individual needs.

Staff were supported with regular supervision and appraisals. Staff received specific training necessary to meet people�s needs.

The management had a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to make sure people who did not have the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves had their legal rights protected.

Caring

Good

Updated 2 June 2016

The service was caring. People who used the service, relatives and healthcare professionals were very positive about the service and the way staff treated the people they supported.

Staff were kind and compassionate and treated people with dignity and respect.

Staff respected people�s wishes and provided care and support in line with those wishes.

Responsive

Good

Updated 2 June 2016

The service was responsive. People received individualised care and support which was responsive to their changing needs.

People were able to make choices and have control over the care and support they received.

People knew how to make a complaint and were confident if they raised any concerns these would be listened to. People were consulted and involved in the running of the service, their views were sought and acted upon.

Well-led

Good

Updated 2 June 2016

The service was well-led. There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed.

Where the provider had identified areas that required improvement, actions had been taken to improve the quality of the service provided.

People were asked for their views on the service. Staff were supported by the management team.