Kingsman House Care Home

People were protected from avoidable harm through thorough assessment of risk. Staff knew how to recognise concerns and report them appropriately. Staff had the necessary experience and skills to provide care. Medicines management was established. Infection control procedures were inline with good practice guidelines. Environmental checks and maintenance were in place to ensure people were safe. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met.

People’s needs were assessed, care was delivered with the aim of achieving their outcomes. The home worked with external professionals and services to meet people’s needs. Healthcare needs were met, access to resources to support them people to live healthier lives. Consent was sought and people were involved in their health, wellbeing and supported to make choices in their care. If there was a concern a person lacked capacity to make individual decisions, an assessment was carried out in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Staff were supported by the manager and provider to understand the vision for the service. The service had a vibrant but relaxed feel. Staff were supported well and therefore were happy in their work, this was noticed by people and their relatives. The manager was clear in the view that to achieve the best possible care they must support their staff team. People felt staff knew them well, they told us they were kind, supportive and caring.

People and staff worked in partnership to achieve their care needs. The home worked to ensure everyone received information in the way they preferred. Barriers to communication were challenged and addressed. Equality and diversity were considered, and the principles embedded within the homes policies. Feedback was requested and listened to in a formal and an informal way throughout the home.

Leadership was visible within the home, there had been changes in staffing which had created a slight period of uncertainty, however, overwhelmingly feedback received during the assessment confirmed there were improvements in all areas of the home. Processes were in place to ensure safe operation of the home. Links had been made with external professionals and improvements had been noted. People and staff had confidence in the management of the home and felt included in decisions. The manager and provider were working on a programme of continual improvement with a whole service development plan. The home had sought external, independent audit of their practices to ensure they stayed on track. The manager had made all necessary notifications and information sharing as required.