You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 2 May 2018

During a routine inspection

Kingscroft provides short breaks to approximately 40 people on annual basis and also provides unplanned respite for people in the event of an emergency such as family illness.

The home provides 24 hour care, supervision and support for up to eight people at a time with learning disabilities and additional health needs.

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 2 May 2018. At the time of our inspection two people were using the service.

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.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

The service was managed in a safe environment with adequate numbers of staff. People’s risks had been assessed and they were protected from abuse. Medicines were managed safely and robust infection control procedures protected people from the risk of infection. Lessons were learned when things went wrong and actions were taken to improve safety.

People had access to healthcare services and their health and well-being needs were met. People had a choice of menu and complex eating and drinking needs were managed. People’s cultural and religious preferences were also taken into account. Staff had the right skills to meet the needs of the people they cared for. The premises was appropriately designed and adapted to meet people’s needs. People are 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.

Relatives fed back that staff were caring. Rotas were arranged to allow staff adequate time to spend with people. People’s dignity and respect were understood by staff. Staff encouraged people to be independent.

People’s needs were assessed before entering Kingscroft. Relatives and people contributed to the planning of their care and support. Staff ensured that people had as much choice and control as possible. People were supported to take part in activities and they were encouraged to develop and maintain relationships. People and their relatives knew how to make complaints and staff used them to make improvements.

The manager supported staff in their roles. There were regular staff meetings and staff’s views were taken into account. The registered manager ensured that staff upheld the vision and values of the service including a person-centred culture, compassion, dignity and respect. Regular checks were carried out on the service through a variety of different audits. Communication was good between the service and relatives and there were strong links with the local community.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection carried out on 29 February 2016

During a routine inspection

Kingscroft is a service which provides short-break and respite care for up to eight people with a learning disability, epilepsy, autism or a sensory impairment. At the time of our inspection two people were staying at Kingscroft.

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 29 February 2016.

There was 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager assisted us with our inspection on the day.

Proper medicine management procedures were followed by staff. Storage of medicines was good and records related to medicines were completed correctly.

There were enough staff working to meet people’s needs. Staffing levels were such that people received the appropriate support. People were enabled to go out or remain in the service because of staffing levels.

Staff were provided with regular training to assist them with carrying out their role and staff had the opportunity to meet with their line manager regularly to check they were following best practice, or to discuss any aspect of their work.

Staff had a good understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, which meant the proper procedures were being followed for people who had restrictions in place.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored by staff to help ensure they could mitigate against further incidents happening. People’s dietary requirements were highlighted to staff and these were taken into account when preparing the meals.

Quality assurance monitoring was completed and actions from provider visit audits had been addressed by staff. In the event of an emergency or the service had to be evacuated people’s care and support would not be interrupted.

Where a risk to people had been identified action was taken by staff. Staff had a clear understanding of how to safeguard people and knew what steps they should take if they suspected abuse. There was an effective recruitment process which helped ensure that only suitable staff were employed.

Staff showed people care and kindness. They recognised people’s individual characteristics and allowed them to make choices. Relatives were made to feel included in the service.

Activities were arranged for people and were flexible to fit with what people chose to do on a daily basis. People had comprehensive pre-admission assessments before they used the service and care records were detailed and focused on the person. People were supported to access external health care professionals when required.

Staff were involved in all aspects of the service and attended regular staff meetings. Staff felt supported by the registered manager. There was complaint information available for people should they have any concerns about the care they were receiving.