Kingdom House

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

Person-centred care plans guided staff practices, however, records lacked detail and involvement with relevant people. Health professionals were consulted when necessary, however records were not promptly updated in line with professional guidance.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s relatives and representatives told us they were not involved and included in care planning despite knowing people needs well. One relative said,” I don’t know if there is a care plan. Another relative said, “They don’t really involve me with professionals as they should, but I know [my relative] inside out and they don’t. They should think to involve me because I asked them many times.”

Staff and leaders recognised the necessity to enhance the service to ensure it met people's needs. The lack of a stable manager had affected the service quality, and there was a need for further quality monitoring leading to detailed action plans to initiate improvements in person centred care.

We found that people received aspects of care that were person-centred, yet there was potential for improvement to ensure consistent opportunities for individuals to communicate their needs, desires, and preferences.

People were not consistently in control of their care planning. While their care involved coordination and the participation of other partners, such as health professionals, the process was inconsistent, and certain referrals were not made promptly. Additionally, advice from health professionals was not always consistently communicated or effectively shared among the staff to guarantee prompt action.

Staff and leaders were aware when people's needs changed and had made referrals for support from partners.

Partners told us that additional support and oversight resources were being given to the provider. Despite slower than expected progress, there has been a gradual improvement which needs further focus. Quality monitoring has given the provider definitive guidance, and enhancing leadership and oversight has been pivotal in raising standards.

Records relating to people's care were often inconsistent and lacked sufficient detail. Staff and leaders had begun to implement measures to oversee the quality of records, but further work was required. For instance, the charts for monitoring fluid intake and hydration need more detail to adequately address health requirements and they needed quality checking to ensure they were correctly completed.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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

The provider had not ensured there were robust systems in place to ensure people and their relatives views were actively sought so they could be used to drive improvements at the service. We received mixed views from people and relatives about the quality of care provided at the service. People and relatives spoken with told us they had not been asked for feedback about the service. They had not been asked to complete a survey or invited to attend any residents or relative's meetings.

The current management team acknowledged they needed to improve outcomes for people. Staff told us there had been several managers who had stayed a while them moved on. Staff had found they were confident to raise issues, but they were not listened to, or action taken. This left them feeling unsettled and without clear guidance and direction.

The provider had not ensured there were robust systems in place to ensure people received good outcomes. People and relatives views were not actively sought so they could be used to drive improvements at the service. We received mixed views from people and relatives about the quality of care provided at the service. People and relatives spoken with told us they had not been asked for feedback about the service. Some people had not been asked to complete a survey or invited to attend any residents or relative's meetings. People were not involved in any of the providers initiative to share their views like the attending house meetings or involvement in the people's diversity and inclusion council.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.