Kingswood Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement and we found a breach of legal regulation in relation to governance. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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.

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The registered manager created a culture of openness and shared their vision with the staff team. Feedback from staff was welcomed and valued. The home had a, ‘we said, you did’ forum where feedback was acted upon. For example, staff had raised they were not aware of development opportunities. In response, the provider arranged for a careers day to be held with the provider’s training and compliance manager. Staff were also able to book one-to-one appointments to discuss opportunities further.

The provider shared and celebrated positive feedback through newsletters.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience, and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness, and honesty.

The registered manager and deputy were enthusiastic about their roles. The deputy had worked at the home for many years and were proud of the achievements. The registered manager had taken the time to write about their experience through writing a, ‘my journey’ story about their background and achievements. The registered manager told us the home focused on life enrichment and creating a positive experience for people. This included supporting people to celebrate special occasions such as birthdays. Garden parties were planned with people and their families to celebrate a recent birthday. One person, who was receiving end of life care, visited London with staff. Staff focused on providing good outcomes for people.

The management team celebrated the team’s success’s and had nominated some staff for awards. The chef had won a national award for ‘chef of the year’. The home had also entered a local competition as they had upgraded the garden and surrounding areas. Celebrating an ‘employee of the month’ and ‘resident of the day’ promoted a positive culture.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The service employed a freedom to speak up champion who supported staff to raise concerns. The provider had a whistle blowing policy and guidance for staff about speaking up was displayed around the home and in files in the office. Staff said they found managers approachable and would be confident to raise any concerns.

The home had a ‘resident ambassador’ who supported people to feel welcome, comfortable, and connected within the community they lived in. The ambassador also lived at the home and received care. They divided their time speaking and visiting people and helped their voices be heard. The ambassador gave updates to the deputy, registered manager, and staff if any concerns were raised. The home also had a ‘recruitment champion’ who was involved with the recruitment of new staff. They attended interviews and were able to give their opinions to the management team. This was introduced following feedback from people regarding some staff having poor communication skills.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The registered manager had developed a staff newsletter, where they kept staff up to date with information about what was going on in the home. This included providing an update to staff following the staff survey, a manager’s corner, how to access rewards and benefits, information about wellbeing, speaking up, ‘you said, we did’ feedback and important dates.

The provider had a staff wellbeing champion, who worked at the home. They supported staff wellbeing and signposted staff to resources of support. They actively promoted a positive environment and culture. Staff had access to a wellbeing hub via an app. The app contained information about wellbeing, mental health, and support services.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

At the last assessment we found systems for monitoring the quality of the service were not always effective. We identified several gaps within people’s care records, in relation to food, fluid and repositioning charts. At this inspection we found improvements had been made.Audits were undertaken by the nurses and the management team. The provider had recently introduced a new electronic care planning system. The staff now recorded people’s food and fluid intake on electronic devices. When people were repositioned, this was also recorded. Records contained information about the total amount of fluid consumed each day and what people had eaten. This was audited by nurses during each shift, the registered manager and deputy.

The provider had systems to monitor the standard of care provided at the home. The registered manager and deputy had a program of audits to complete to identify any concerns and areas needing improvement. The operations manager had completed regular monitoring of the home. This included undertaking audits of records, speaking with people and staff. Action plans were created when shortfalls were identified. These included dates when actions needed to be completed.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Staff and leaders understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. The home was actively involved in the community. For example, some people regularly attended local churches, day services and events such as fairs and fundraising.

The local GP practice and other health and social care professionals collaborated with staff and people to share learning and continuous improvements. Health professionals had provided bespoke training for staff and the home had participated in projects to develop innovative ideas which could lead to better outcomes for people. For example, a project reviewing the causes and management of falls.

We gathered feedback from professionals who worked closely with the home. The overall feedback was positive. Professionals told us, “I have found the management team open, transparent, keen to make necessary changes, communicates well with myself and the team effectively and leading the team from their own example, with gentleness, humility, encouragement, positivity, and openness.” Another comment made included, “What particularly impresses me, […] the management of Kingswood Court do not hide away in an office but are seen out and about engaging with residents, members of staff, family and visitors.” The home had captured an array of positive feedback from visiting professionals. This was shared with staff and celebrated.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome, and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The registered manager told us they used every opportunity to improve the service and created a culture of learning. Managers shared learning with staff when things went wrong. This was done by reflecting on events in staff and resident meetings with presentations used. The registered manager gave examples of creating an open and positive culture where they worked in collaboration with professionals. For example, the had worked with a specialist dementia nurse and a pharmacist to review any learning and improvements they could make to the service.

Meetings were held with staff and separately with residents. Information was shared during these meetings where staff and residents were able to give feedback and suggestions. However, we reviewed staff meeting minutes and they did not always include the voice of staff. We raised this with the registered manager who told us it was most likely not clearly recorded by the note taker. They confirmed staff shared feedback during meetings and spoke up when needed. This was confirmed during are conversations with staff.