Kings House

We found the following examples of good practice.

At the time of our visit the service had not had any people using the service that tested positive for COVID-19.

The service was clean and clutter free. The service had comprehensive cleaning schedules in place for day to day cleaning. Staff were knowledgeable about cleaning and cleaning procedures.

Personal protective equipment (PPE) was available in the service's office and reception areas. Handwashing guidance was displayed throughout the service in bathrooms and above sinks.

The service provided safe and effective ways for people to visit their relatives during the COVID-19 pandemic. Visitors had been contacted by staff about the service’s visiting arrangements.

The service’s gazebo was used as a visiting hub during cold weather. Families and carers could also book visits to see their relatives in the dining room as a result of in-house visiting. Prior to visits commencing visitors had temperatures taken and a COVID-19 lateral flow test, this is a rapid test to detect COVID-19. Visitors were also provided with personal protective equipment (PPE).

Friends and family could video call people using the service by prior arrangement. People using the service could telephone their loved ones at any time. All equipment was sanitised after use.

The service had a contingency plan in place. In the event of an outbreak the service would isolate people in their rooms. Staff had not had to instigate their contingency plan during the pandemic.

The service participated in the whole home testing programme, this meant people living in the home were tested for COVID-19 every 28 days. The service's staff were tested for COVID-19 every seven days, supplemented by twice weekly lateral flow testing,

The service had systems in place to ensure staff isolated for the required period should they test positive for COVID-19. Staff breaks whilst at work were taken in the staff kitchen or garden and staggered to ensure social distancing.

To enable staff in providing care safely, staff had received additional training in COVID-19 awareness and infection prevention and control. This ensured they understood the actions to take in the event of people living in the service becoming symptomatic.

The service had up to date infection prevention and control (IPC) policies. IPC audits were completed regularly and included extra measures the service had put in place due to COVID-19. IPC audits were monitored by the local authority.

Kings House is a care home without nursing for adults with enduring mental health conditions. It is a large converted house set in a residential suburb of Bournemouth. It is registered for up to 19 people, but accommodates up to 18. There were 18 people living there at the time of the inspection.

People’s experience of using this service:

People told us they felt safe living at Kings House.

Staff treated them with kindness and respect. They were supportive when people were worried or upset.

People’s privacy, dignity and independence was respected.

People were pleased with their support at Kings House. Their needs and preferences were assessed, and a holistic support plan drawn up based on this, in consultation with them.

Assessments and support plans were regularly reviewed and updated. People were encouraged to be involved in this process.

People were 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.

Staff actively encouraged people to be involved in planning and reviewing their support.

People received the support they needed to manage their physical and mental health.

There was a range of healthy and tasty meals. People had a say in what was on the menu and dietary needs were catered for.

People were encouraged and enabled to pursue hobbies and get involved in activities in the wider community. In-house activities were also provided, based on people’s suggestions and interests.

Staff understood their responsibility to report concerns about neglect and abuse and knew how to do this.

The premises were kept in a clean and safe condition. Refurbishment was under way.

There were enough safely recruited staff on duty to provide the support people needed.

Staff were well supported through training and supervision so they could support people safely and effectively.

Medicines were stored securely and managed safely.

Lessons were learned when things went wrong. There was an open and transparent culture in relation to reporting and investigating adverse incidents.

People told us they would feel able to raise concerns or complaints with the manager.

The service had an open, positive, person-centred culture.

People and staff expressed confidence in the current manager’s leadership.

The manager worked closely with staff and was readily available to them, and to people who used the service.

There was an effective system for the manager and provider to oversee Kings House and monitor the quality of the service provided.

Action was taken to address any areas for improvement that were identified through audits and incident reviews.

There had been a turnover in staff with the change in manager. The manager and staff acknowledged the changes had been difficult and were enthusiastic about how the service was changing for the better.

Rating at last inspection:

Good (report published 9 September 2016)

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Kings House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 19 people. The home supports people with enduring mental health needs. The premises provide accommodation over three floors, including a self-contained flat for supporting people to prepare to move on to more independent accommodation. At the time of the inspection there were 18 people living at the home.

The home had a registered manager who has managed the home for many years. 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.

At the last inspection of the home in January 2014 the home was meeting Regulations and standards prevailing at that time.

Staff received regular training in safeguarding adults and were aware of how to report any concerns. Procedures and information about potential abuse had also been discussed with people at residents’ meetings.

The building had been risk assessed, identifying any potential hazards. Action had been taken to make sure the premises were managed safely.

Risk assessments had also been completed with respect to ensuring that care and support of people was managed safely. There were well-developed systems for both reporting and analysing any incidents or accidents that occurred in the home.

There were robust staff recruitment procedures followed to make sure competent staff were employed to work with people. All the required checks had been carried out with records of checks in place.

The home had sufficient staff deployed to meet the needs of people accommodated.

Medicines were managed safely in the home.

The staff team were well-trained and there were systems in place to make sure staff received training when required. Making sure staff received update training was to be taken forward by the manager.

The home was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It had not been necessary to make any referrals to the local authority for people to be deprived of their liberty.

People’s consent was gained for how they were cared for and supported.

Staff were supported through one to one supervision and annual appraisals.

People were provided with a good standard of food and their nutritional needs were met.

People were positive about the staff team and the good standards of care provided in the home. People’s privacy and dignity were respected.

Care planning was effective and up to date, making sure people’s needs were met.

The home provided a programme of activities to keep people meaningfully occupied.

The home had a well-publicised complaints policy and people had confidence that any complaint would be taken seriously and responded to.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided to people.

There was good leadership of the home and a positive ethos and culture prevailing in the home.

We found that people's consent was sought regarding the way their care was planned and the way they were supported at the home. The staff we spoke with were trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the circumstances when best interest decisions would need to be made on behalf of a person.

People's physical and mental health needs been assessed and care plans put in place to inform staff of how to support people. Care plans were up to date and reflected the needs of people whose care we focused on at the inspection.

We found there were robust and safe systems in place to manage medicines in the home.

There were affective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that the quality of service was maintained as well as being responsive to the needs of people living at Kings House.

People living at Kings House were fully involved in how their care was planned and delivered.

Their privacy and dignity were also maintained and respected. The ethos of the organisation is that Kings House is people's home and staff must respect this.

People's needs had been assessed and staff were informed of how to support people through personalised care plans that were in place. Risks associated in supporting people had been assessed and appropriate steps taken to make sure that care was provided safely.

Staff had been trained to identify abuse and the steps they should take should they suspect a person was being mistreated. The home had all the policies and procedures in place for the reporting of any adult safeguarding issues.

Robust recruitment procedures were in place and followed to make sure that appropriate staff were employed to support people.

We found there were comprehensive systems in place to make sure that the quality of service was monitored.