Kingsleigh House

Updated 25 April 2019

The Inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

The Inspection team consisted of one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.

Service and service type:

Kingsleigh House is a residential care home that is registered to provide care and accommodation for a maximum of 30 older people. 27 people were using the service at the time of the inspection, some experienced dementia.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

The inspection was unannounced.

What we did:

The inspection activity started on 18 March 2019 when we visited the location. We visited the location to see people using the service, their relatives, the registered manager and staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures.

We reviewed information we had received about the service since they were registered with us. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about, such as allegations of abuse and we sought feedback from the local authority and other professionals who work with the service. We assessed the information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

We spoke with eight people that used the service and two relatives to gather their views on the service being delivered. We also spoke with a representative of the provider, the registered manager and three staff members, the activity co-ordinator, the cook, two volunteers and one trustee. We used this information to form part of our judgement. We carried out a Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) to observe the interactions of people unable to speak with us.

We looked at two people’s care records to see how their care and treatment was planned and delivered. Other records looked at included two recruitment files to check suitable staff members were recruited and received appropriate training. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service along with a selection of the provider’s policies and procedures, to ensure people received a good quality service. Details are in the ‘Key Questions’ below.

Updated 25 April 2019

About the service:

Kingsleigh House is a residential care home that is registered to provide care and accommodation for a maximum of 30 older people. 27 people were using the service at the time of the inspection, some of those experienced dementia. There was a registered manager who was present during our inspection. 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.

People’s experience of using this service:

Whilst some audits were in place there was not enough detail provided to give a clear overview of any patterns or trends. We did not always receive notifications as required to enable us to see what action the provider took to keep people safe.

Checks were carried out on people’s satisfaction with their care using questionnaires. People knew the registered manager and felt they were visible around the home and were approachable.

People were supported by staff to remain safe. There were enough staff available to people and people’s needs were attended to in a timely manner. Risk assessments were in place to minimise any potential risk to people’s wellbeing. Staff were recruited in a safe way. People received their medicines as expected.

People felt that staff assisting them knew their needs. Staff received training and had been provided with an induction, and felt able to approach the registered manager with any concerns. Meals were nutritious and people were kept hydrated. People were supported to maintain their health. People were supported to have choice and control over their lives and staff understood that they should support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People felt that staff were kind and caring. Staff maintained people’s confidentiality and privacy and dignity. People were encouraged to be independent.

People's care plans reflected their needs and preferences and staff could explain specific care that people required. Activities were planned and people participated in them as they wished. Complaints were dealt with appropriately in line with the complaints procedure. People participated in activities that were tailored to their needs. End of life plans were considered when required.

Rating at last inspection: The rating for the service at our last inspection was ‘Requires Improvement’ with breaches of Regulation 13 and 17 with our last report published on 08 September 2017.

Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection that was due based on our scheduling targets. At the last inspection the key questions around Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well led were rated ‘requires improvement’. This was due to concerns around reporting of safeguarding concerns, management of medicines, staff not being deployed effectively and recruitment processes not always being robust. Other issues included, people not being supported to have their views and concerns heard, concerns around staff whether staff maintained people’s privacy and dignity consistently, complaints not being addressed in a robust manner and concerns that checks and audits not carried out effectively. At this inspection we found that there had been some improvements, but further changes were required.

Enforcement:

No enforcement action was required.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.