Archived: Kingly Lodge

Updated 12 April 2019

The inspection: We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team: The inspection was carried out by one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of caring for someone who uses this type of service.

Service and service type: Kingly Lodge is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

At the time of our visit the service was without a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission, though one was in the process of applying to be registered with us. The registered manager and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection: The Inspection was unannounced.

What we did:

Before inspection: The provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR), this is information the provider is required to send us at least annually that provides key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the PIR and other information we held about the service such as notifications. These are events which happened in the service that the provider is required to tell us about.

We sought feedback from the local authority who monitor the care and support people received and Healthwatch Leicestershire, the local consumer champion for people using adult social care services. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During inspection: We spoke with the three people living at the service. We also spoke with the providers operations director, the operations manager, three occupational therapists, the care coordinator, a team leader and a support worker.

We observed support being provided in the communal areas of the service. We reviewed a range of records about people's care and how the service was managed. This included two people's care records. We also looked at associated documents including risk assessments and medicine records. We looked at staff training records and the providers quality assurance audits that the management team had completed.

After inspection: The operations director provided us with copies of documents requested to demonstrate compliance with the regulations.

Updated 12 April 2019

About the service: Kingly Lodge provides accommodation for up to five adults with acquired brain injuries and neurological conditions. The staff team includes a dedicated team of occupational therapists to assist people with their support and rehabilitation. There were three people using the service at the time of our visit.

People’s experience of using this service:

•Whilst people received their medicines safely and as prescribed by their GP, the completion of the medicine administration records and the providers protocol for medicines prescribed ‘as and when required’ needed attention.

•The providers auditing and monitoring processes had not identified issues regarding the temperature of the hot water being delivered at the service.

•It was not always evident sufficient numbers of staff were deployed throughout the day to meet the needs of the service and the people using it. We recommended staffing numbers be revisited.

•People felt safe living at Kingly Lodge and with the staff team who supported them. The staff team knew what actions to take should they feel people were at risk of avoidable harm.

•Risks associated with people’s care had been comprehensively assessed and plans of care were in place for the staff team to follow.

•The staff team were experienced and knowledgeable and felt supported in their role.

•People were treated with kindness and compassion and their privacy and dignity respected.

•Support from relevant healthcare professionals was sought when required and people were supported to eat and drink well.

•People were provided with a clean and comfortable place to live and there were appropriate spaces to enable people to either spend time on their own, or with others.

•People had individual activities schedules. They were supported to follow their interests and hobbies and to participate in social activities with others.

•A formal complaints process was displayed and people knew who to talk to if they had a concern of any kind.

•People were supported to have the maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the polices and systems in the service supported this practice.

•The staff team supported people to make decisions about their day to day care and support and always obtained people’s consent to their care. They were aware of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) ensuring people's human rights were protected.

•People had the opportunity to have a say and to be involved in how the service was run.

•The management team worked in partnership with other agencies to ensure people received care and support that was consistent with their assessed needs.

•Lessons were learned and improvements to the service were made when things went wrong.

More information is in the detailed findings below.

Rating at last inspection: Outstanding - last report published 17 June 2016.

Rating at this inspection: We found evidence to demonstrate and support the overall rating of Requires Improvement.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up: Going forward we will continue to monitor this service and plan to inspect in line with our re-inspection schedule for those services rated requires improvement.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk