Kingston Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People felt safe. One relative said, “I am happy that she is safe and well looked after. I always see plenty of staff around.”

We observed inappropriate interactions used by a member of care staff. The management took this very seriously and were going to address this internally. We were assured by appropriate action being taken.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Care records contained risk assessments, including supporting positive risk taking to ensure people could carry on living a fulfilling life. This included visiting community venues. People at risk of falling were fully monitored and necessary referrals to external professionals made where needed.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. The management team used a dependency tool to calculate staffing needs. We received a small number of comments from staff who thought there was not enough staff in one area of the home. We shared this information with the provider who was committed to holding staff meetings to discuss these comments with staff. They shared the minutes of the meeting to confirm this had taken place. We received positive comments from relatives and people regarding staffing and one relative said, “I don’t know if they have changed things recently but there seems more of them (staff), and they are doing more.”

Staff had not always worked as well as they should have to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. We found examples where staff had not always communicated with each other as well as they should have. This included people not having hearing aids checked to ensure they were in place; staff not easily able to confirm if medicines had been ordered, or people at the end of their lives being asked questions about their care needs which were no longer relevant. We gave feedback to the management team about this, and they were apologetic this had occurred. They took action to address this immediately, which included more robust staff handovers.

Safe recruitment procedures were followed. This included requesting references, and having a Disclosure and Barring Service check completed before new staff started working at the service.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Communication regarding medicines management was not always consistent, meaning people had been placed at greater risk of harm. Medicines were generally managed well with people receiving them on time. Communication regarding medication was reported as needing improved by relatives. One relative said, “When they change staff it (changes to medication) doesn’t seem to get transmitted to them.” This was addressed by the provider, including by more robust staff handovers now taking place. Continued monitoring was required to ensure improvements continued.

There was no impact on people, but we discussed some updates to processes which would enhance systems and security, including ‘as required’ medicine protocols all being in place and creams to be locked in people’s rooms. The provider addressed all of the updates required to improve processes. This needed to be further monitored to ensure good practice was embedded by staff, particularly communication.

Any medicines incidents were appropriately reported and investigated, so measures could be put in place to help prevent a recurrence and learning could be shared.