Kingsman House Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

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.

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.

People and their loved ones told us they felt reassured by the practices within the home in terms of safety and management of accidents. One relative said, “My loved one used to experience falls at home and, now they are safe." Incidents that occurred within the home, were recorded, and discussed to prevent reoccurrence. Staff detailed the actions they took in real life recent events within the home. All necessary steps for safety were maintained and records reflected the actions taken.

Incidents that occurred within the home, were recorded, and discussed to prevent reoccurrence. Staff detailed the actions they took in real life recent events within the home. All necessary steps for safety were maintained and records reflected the actions taken.

Accidents, incidents and events were recorded, and people’s care plans were updated. The manager was informed of each incident and reviewed accidents across the home regularly to identify trends and themes. In addition to this, learning was shared across the providers locations.

People felt confident their needs would be met by staff and information would be shared to ensure their care was the best it could be. They were involved in decisions and their views were valued. A relative told us, “My loved one [name] is safe, if there is an incident, they are on it.”

Staff told us the information was accessible if they needed to speak with external partners for people. This included, if a person had gone to hospital. They told us information and summaries were available on the electronic care planning system.

Healthcare professionals told us there was a strong channel of communication between them and the home, this had improved within recent months. They told us this had improved outcomes for people, for example, in regard to skin care and general wellbeing.

People’s needs, and care requirements were detailed within their care plans and risk assessments. A summary was available if the person went into hospital or moved to another care home. This supported continuity in care for people.

People and their relative’s told us Kingsman House Care Home was a safe place to be. People told us a variety of reasons for how they felt safe, from staffing, their bedrooms and knowing there was always someone there to support them. Relatives told us they had peace of mind knowing their loved one was safe. A relative said, “I know my loved one [name] is safe and looked after”.

Staff knew how to ensure people were protected from harm and abuse. They told us how they would raise concerns both within the home and outside. Staff were confident the management team would follow up any concerns. Staff understood how to ensure people’s rights were fully respected and had received training in DoLS.

We observed safe interactions throughout our assessment of the home. Staff worked in safe ways, for example, when supporting people to move around the home.

Safeguarding procedures were in place to ensure potentially harmful situations were identified and addressed. Safeguarding was a topic for discussion, not only within mandatory training but within handovers and staff meetings. The manager told us safeguarding was always discussed. Record showed safeguarding referrals had been made as necessary and this included notifying CQC of certain events as required. All legal applications had been made in accordance with DoLS, this meant people’s rights were fully respected. The manager had oversight of DoLS applications, authorisations, and conditions.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe, and their risks to their wellbeing were considered and managed. A relative said, “People are safe, staff are quick to respond.”

Staff told us they understood people’s risks and how to keep them safe. Staff told us ways in which they would support people who had significant risks to their wellbeing. This had included, where a person was at risk of falls, difficulty swallowing, and worsening of their medical conditions.

We observed staff working in safe ways with people. Where people were supported to move and transfer using equipment, this was used in a safe way by staff.

People’s risks were assessed prior to and when they moved into the home. People had individual risk assessments, for example, supporting their mobility, falls risks and choking safety. Risk assessments were updated as people’s needs changed. The providers electronic care planning system ensured changes were made immediately as required.

People and their relatives told us they were happy with the home in terms of decoration and condition. This included both communal areas and personal bedrooms. People were encouraged to furnish their bedrooms and bring along their personal belongings.

The management and staff told us they were confident in the upkeep and condition of the home, ensuring a safe environment was important to them. Many updates and improvements had been made and there was an ongoing maintenance, redecoration, and refurbishment plan. Staff told us they had fire safety training, including fire drills, records confirmed this.

Kingsman House Care Home was clean and well maintained. Equipment and décor were in good working order. Fire safety procedures were in place, this included equipment and instructions for emergency services, about the assistance people require to safely evacuate the building.

Equipment and utility checks were up to date and closely monitored to ensure they were always maintained. A dedicated staff member had oversight of maintenance within the home. There was a programme of works and reminders of expiry dates. The home used external specialists and contractors to undertake some checks. This meant they had been carried out by qualified individuals.

Staff were there when people needed them, there were enough staff on duty. People and their relatives told us although staff were extremely busy at times during the day, they did not think there was a shortage. Staff were well trained and skilled to support people well. A relative said, “There are enough staff they are so warm to each other and so friendly, they are amazing honestly, they can never do enough for my loved one [name].”

Staff received the training and support to ensure they worked within the values of Kingsman House Care Home. Staff told us they felt supported fully by the management team and received all the training to be able to carry out their role effectively. Formal supervisions were in the process of being improved. A staff member said, “I like my job. I feel there are enough staff, generally if more are needed, they get more in.” Another staff member said, “The staff team have been very helpful we all help each other and work well together. I think they are giving the best care.”

We observed the correct number of staff which was in accordance with the plan for the day. Staff were there when people needed them, this included when staff attended people who had pressed their call bell.

Staffing numbers had been calculated to meet people’s needs, this helped the manager know how many staff were needed to provide safe care. Staff were recruited safely, and recruitment records reflected this. Procedures were in place to ensure the required checks were carried out on staff before they commenced their employment. This included enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for adults. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Training was in place to ensure staff were properly inducted into the home and their development was ongoing. A dedicated member of staff for the provider had oversight of training within the home. A member of staff said, “Training was very good it’s good to have the training before you start helping people, training is as important as practical.”

People and their relatives told us the home was clean and tidy; they had no concerns about cleanliness. A relative told us, “It’s spotlessly clean.” A person said, “My room is cleaned every day, and my laundry is done everyday.”

Everyone was responsible for keeping the home clean and tidy but there were dedicated staff who ensured hygiene processes were followed.

We observed a clean, clutter free and hygienic home. People were supported to maintain their own personal hygiene and staff were attentive with cleaning. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was worn appropriately by staff.

Infection prevention and control procedures were in place and underpinned by a comprehensive policy. Infection control procedures and audits were in line with national good practice guidance. Staff had access to safe supplies of cleaning materials, products, and PPE.

People told us they received their medicines when they needed them. We observed medicines being given safely, with staff taking time with people to help them take their medicines.

Staff told us they generally felt supported with medicines, and they could come forward and report any problems. They told us they had training and competency checks to make sure they gave medicines safely. They told us that they were looking forward to new systems that were about to be introduced. Staff told us they knew how to report any medicines issues or errors. They were knowledgeable about people and their needs regarding medicines, including ‘when required’ medicines and when they might be needed. They told us they had received training and competency checks, to make sure they gave medicines safely, and we saw records that showed these had been completed. They were positive about the new electronic system about to be introduced.

Medicines were stored safely and there were appropriate arrangements for disposal, and for controlled drugs. There was suitable temperature monitoring being carried out. People received their medicines as prescribed and at suitable times. When medicines were prescribed to be taken ‘when required’ there were detailed and person-centred protocols in place to guide staff when these might need to be given for each person. There were a few missing, however this had been identified and we were told were currently being reviewed before the change to a new electronic system. Medicines audits were completed, and the provider was introducing new audits to help identify any areas for improvement. Errors or incidents were reported, investigated and any actions put in place to prevent recurrence. Staff training and annual medicine competency checks were all in place and documented.