Kingsbury House Limited

Updated 10 March 2022

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at how services manage infection control and visiting arrangements. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection prevention and control measures the provider had in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 23 February 2022 and was unannounced.

Updated 10 March 2022

We inspected this service on 9 April 2018. The inspection was unannounced.

Kingsbury House Limited is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single packages under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Kingsbury House Limited accommodates up to 19 people living with mental health needs. On the day of our inspection, 17 people were living at the service.

The service had a registered manager at the time of 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

During the home’s previous inspection in April 2017, we rated the service ‘Requires Improvement’ and identified one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014. This was in relation to Regulation 17 Good Governance. Systems in place to check on quality and safety were not as effective as they should have been. Following this inspection the registered provider was required to send us an action plan to inform us of the action they would take to make the required improvements.

During this inspection we checked to see whether improvements had been made, we found the breach in regulation had been met and all areas of the service had improved resulting in positive outcomes for people.

People told us they felt staff provided safe care and support. When safeguarding incidents or concerns were identified, the registered manager took appropriate action to protect people. Staff were trained in adult safeguarding procedures and knew what to do if they considered someone was at risk of harm or if they needed to report concerns.

There were systems in place to identify, manage and monitor risks associated with people’s needs including the environment. Accidents and incidents were minimal but recorded and reported by staff. The registered manager analysed these to ensure appropriate action had been taken to protect people, and to consider if there were any themes or patterns that required further action. Contingency plans were in place to support staff to provide a safe service in the event of an untoward incident affecting the service.

There were sufficient staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. Safe recruitment procedures were in place and followed. People’s prescribed medicines were managed and stored safely following best practice guidance.

Improvements had been made to infection control practice and some areas of the service had been refurbished.

People were supported by staff that had received an induction, ongoing training and support. The provider ensured practice was in line with current legislation and best practice guidance.

People received sufficient to eat and drink and their nutritional needs had been assessed and planned for. Opportunities of healthy eating needed to be promoted; the registered manager took action to address this.

People had 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. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were followed when decisions were made about people's care. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were in place for people where required.

The service worked with external healthcare professionals when required to ensure they provided effective care and support. When concerns were identified about people’s healthcare needs, appropriate action was taken to support people’s health and well-being.

Staff were kind and caring, they knew people well, and they supported people in a dignified and respectful way. Staff acknowledged and promoted people’s privacy. People felt that staff were understanding of their needs and that they had developed positive relationships with them. Information about an independent advocacy service was available for people should this support have been required.

People were involved in the assessment and review of their needs. Care plans informed staff how to support people and were overall personalised to people’s needs, routines and preferences. Some weekly activities were offered to people. People and staff knew how to raise concerns and these were dealt with appropriately.

People who used the service were given opportunities to share their experience of the service. Quality assurance systems were in place to regularly review the quality and safety of the service provided. Since our last inspection, the service had improved in all areas and the management team were committed to sustain improvements and drive forward further developments.