Kingsway View Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

At the last inspection had not operated an effective system for handling complaints. That was a breach of Regulation 16. The provider made improvements and is no longer in breach. People and communities were at the centre of care. Care, support and treatment were easily accessible. People could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics. People had access to information, advice, and advocacy services. Activities at the home were of a high standard and staff supported people to have meaningful things to do.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were invited to attend resident meetings where they had the opportunity to be involved in the ongoing development of the service and could contribute to decisions in regard to their preference of activities, menu choices and all other areas of their care and treatment. People who did not attend forums had the opportunity to discuss their ideas with the Lifestyle Coordinator and ensure that their decisions in regard to the development of the service were heard and valued

Staff and leaders knew people’s needs very well, including their physical and mental health needs, preferences and life stories. Staff told us that ‘Resident of the Day’ system provided the opportunity for collaborative discussion to discuss options and the risk and benefits in regard to people’s care and support plan.

People’s care plans fully reflected their physical, mental, emotional, and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act and we saw that staff followed them on the day of our visit.

People were involved in completing comprehensive assessments that considered their preferences and ensured that their care and support plans were delivered in a way that meets their needs.

Staff knew people’s diverse health and care needs and supported them along other health care professionals who were involved.

Partner agencies shared positive feedback about how the staff worked in partnership with them to provide joined up care to people.

There was an effective process to work with other services in a way that is well co-ordinated and joined up. We saw multiple examples of referrals to other services and instances of liaising and working jointly with other health care professionals to meet people’s needs holistically.

People had access to easy read documentation, considering all information required in relation to safeguarding, complaints and activities schedule. People had access to menus and staff used show plates for people who required a visual aid to prompt their choice of meal.

Staff provided people with accurate and up to date information in format that was suitable for their needs and preferences. Staff complied with Accessible information standards and ensured people could access information in a format that was tailored to their needs. This included making reasonable adjustments for disabled people, interpreting and translation for people who do not speak English as a first language and for blind people.

There was a process to ensure that information about people were managed in a way that met data protection legislation requirements.

People and their families knew how to give feedback on care and support and how to raise any issues and concerns. They were confident that if they complained, they will be taken seriously and treated compassionately. The comments included, “I would be comfortable sharing concerns. I would probably mention it to the floor manager but would have no problems contacting the new manager too;” “I would feel comfortable raising concerns, no problem, I would speak to the floor manager, ask for a meeting with the manager”.

Staff made it easy for people to share feedback, compliments and concerns about their care and support. Leaders were approachable and followed policies and procedures when received negative feedback from people.

There was a Duty of Candour policy in place. We saw examples of how the policy was applied in practise when things went wrong. There was a complaint policy and staff logged all complaints in a complaint log. We saw the complaints were investigated and responded to in accordance with the home’s policy. The provider commissioned an external company to complete and validate people’s feedback in relation to surveys to gain insight into the views from staff and leaders and partners. The provider created a referral tracker that provided evidence that people regardless of diagnosis, condition orprotected characteristic had access to the right support at the time when they need it the most.

People felt the care and support they received was accessible and they received support with accessing any external services.

Staff were responsive when people’s needs changed. They ensured that people were supported with external appointments if required. Leaders ensured that staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage diverse groups of people in accessing care, treatment, and support. They monitored that through staff supervisions.

Partner agencies shared positive feedback about how staff at the home supported people with access to care and treatment.

There were systems to monitor people’s needs and look out for any changes in their health. For example, people’s weights were monitored and if they lost 5% of their body weight referrals were made to dietitians. Physical premises and equipment were accessible to everyone. There was specialist equipment available, for example to support people with reduced mobility. Communication barriers were addressed, for example when people did not speak English as their first language, staff translated key words to enable communication.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People had the opportunity to discuss their plans for future and end of life wishes.

Staff supported people to plan for life changes, including when they were approaching the end of their life.

Staff involved people’s next of kin or representatives when people had no mental capacity to make decisions about their future. People’s future wishes and choices were recorded in their care plans, including their wishes about cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Staff worked in collaboration with other health care professionals, for example district nurses to support people who approached the end of their life.