Archived: Kemps Place

Kemps Place is a service that provides accommodation and personal care to people who may have a mental health condition, learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. The home is registered for up to 31 people. It is not registered to provide nursing care. Kemps Place is a purpose built care home that provides 30 identical self-contained flats. Each flat has a bedroom, living room, kitchen, and bathroom. On the days of our inspection there were 30 people living in the home and another person was in the process of moving in.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 living at the home were protected from harm as staff had received appropriate training to support them to identify and report harm and to protect people from discrimination. In addition people were happy to raise concerns if they felt unsafe. Actions were taken to protect people from coming to harm. Risk assessments were in place for people living in the home as well as premises and equipment.

People were supported by sufficient staff with the right skills and knowledge to meet their individual needs. Safe recruitment practices were being followed and the registered manager took action against staff involved in unsafe practice. Medication was managed appropriately, risks around self-medication were reviewed and responded to.

Staff had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs, preferences and choices. This included training and support that equipped them to carry out their role. People were provided with good support to eat and drink enough. Staff encouraged people to think about healthy food options and supported to maintain a balanced diet.

The CQC is required to monitor the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. Staff understood how the MCA applied to the people they worked with. The service sought people’s consent regarding their care. No one was being deprived of their liberty at the time of our visit.

People had positive caring relationships with staff who respected their privacy and dignity. They were supported to express their views and were involved in decisions about their care and support. The service had a clear emphasis on supporting people’s independence.

The care provided was responsive and met people’s individual needs and preferences. People were involved in planning and reviewing their care. This meant staff knew about people’s individual needs, preferences and what support they wanted.

There were varied activities for people, these included group activities as well as opportunities for people to participate in activities of their choice. The service had built relationships with their local community and people could access local groups and clubs.

The service had a positive culture that was person-centred, open, inclusive and empowering. People were involved in decisions about the service and there were systems in place to encourage feedback about the home and the care provided. There were quality checks in place and the registered manager took action when issues were identified. The registered manager and provider were visible in the service. People were positive about the running of the home and the support the registered manager provided.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. If you would like to see the evidence that supports the summary, please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We inspected the staff rotas which showed that there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs. People told us about some of the activities they were able to access with staff assistance. For example, one person told us, 'I'm not very good at cooking so they help me.' Another person said, 'I'm going shopping with [staff] this afternoon.

People were cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. Processes were in place to support people to clean their own flats where necessary. Cleaning schedules were seen that demonstrated all communal areas were kept clean and fresh.

Staff records demonstrated that staff employed to work at the service had the skills and experience needed to support people to live as independently as possible.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to all care services. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place so that people who could not make decisions for themselves were protected. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Is it effective?

People we spoke with told us they were happy living at Kemps Place. One person told us, 'It's good here, it really is.' Another person described the support they had received saying, 'They helped me get my provisional licence.'

People were involved in planning and reviewing their care plans and they signed them to show they agreed with what was in them. Staff were aware of the day-to-day support that some people needed to be as independent as possible.

Is the service caring?

People told us that staff treated them well and with consideration. They described how they were looking forward to going on a camping holiday with staff. We saw the interaction between staff and people and saw that it was friendly and warm. Friendly teasing was taking place between people and staff and this generated mutual laughter. Staff were respectful and negotiated with people about where, what and when they would be undertaking a specific activity with them.

People told us they could spend their time as they pleased. One person itemised the activities they enjoyed both in and outside of the service. These included craft club, swimming, creative writing, poetry, tennis and dog walking.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the service. Close contact was maintained with the person's health professionals so that any changes to their treatment or support could take place straight away. Staff understood the diverse needs and preferences of the people living at the service and how they should be met.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. The complaints' process was displayed on the noticeboard in the lounge. The service was due to send out quality questionnaires to people in September 2014 to ensure the service was providing a quality service that met people's expectations.

Is the service well led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care and treatment in a joined up way.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They had a good understanding of the ethos of the service and were able to access training and development that enabled them to provide appropriate care and support. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

The service sought the views of people and their opinions were acted on by staff. Meetings took place with people to discuss events and plans for the service. The next customer satisfaction questionnaires were due to be sent out to people in September 2014. This will ensure that any shortfalls in the service can be identified and addressed promptly, ensuring the quality of the service continually improves.

People described how they could make choices about the way they were supported and they confirmed that they had agreed to their treatment plan. We saw in people's care plan folders where they had signed to show their agreement about the care and treatment that was to be provided for them. People's care plans gave staff information about how to support the individual but they were not always reviewed and updated by the specified due date.

The manager described good relationships with other health and social care professionals that have developed since the service opened in 2012. There was evidence that staff worked in accordance with directions received from other professionals. Medicines were safely stored and staff dispensed them in line with good practice.

Staff were supported by regular supervision sessions and appropriate training was arranged to keep them up to date with good practice. Staff described their induction training, which they felt had been thorough and had equipped them with the skills and knowledge they needed to provide appropriate care and support.