Archived: Kingsley Road

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

The home continued to ensure people were safe. There were enough suitable staff to meet people’s needs. Risk assessments were carried out to enable people to retain their independence and receive care with minimum risk to themselves or others. People received their medicines safely and people were protected from abuse because staff understood how to keep them safe; staff understood the processes they should follow if an allegation of abuse was made. All staff informed us concerns would be followed up if they were raised. The homes were clean and well maintained throughout.

People continued to receive effective care. People who lacked capacity had decisions made in line with current legislation. Staff received training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge required to effectively support people. People told us, and we saw, their healthcare needs were met. People were supported to eat and drink according to their likes and dislikes. 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.

The home continued to provide a caring service to people. People and their relatives told us, and we observed that staff were kind and patient. People’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff and their cultural or religious needs were valued. People were involved in decisions about the care and support they received. People’s choices were always respected and staff encouraged choice for those who struggled to communicate with them.

The home remained responsive to people’s individual needs. Care and support was personalised to each person which ensured they were able to make choices about their day to day lives. People had chosen the colours to decorate their homes and had been supported to personalise their bedrooms. People were supported to follow their own activity programmes. These considered people’s hobbies and interests and reflected people’s preferences. People knew how to complain and there were a range of opportunities for them to raise concerns with the registered manager and designated staff.

The home continued to be well led. People and staff spoke highly about the management. The registered manager continually monitored the quality of the service and made improvements in accordance with people’s changing needs.

The service met all relevant fundamental standards.

People were happy to see us and talk about the care and support they received. Care workers told us they enjoyed working in the home and were satisfied that there were enough staff at all times to enable them to support people safely and appropriately.

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. We spoke with four people who lived in the home and asked them if they received their care at the times they wanted, they told us that 'mostly they did'.

There were not enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. We spoke with four members of staff who told us that morale was poor and staff were concerned at the low number of staff on shifts whilst many people now needed additional support. One member of staff told us, "we are run off our feet in the mornings". They explained that up until10.00 am, there were only two members of staff on the shift and several people needed support with their care.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.