Archived: Kingwood - White Barn

Kingswood – White Barn is a care home, which is registered to provide care (without nursing) for up to eight people with autistic spectrum conditions and learning disabilities. There were four people in residence during our visit.

The home is a semi-detached building in Reading and is close to local shops and other amenities. People had their own bedrooms with ensuite facilities and use of communal areas that included an enclosed private garden. The people living in the home need care and support from staff at all times and have a range of care needs.

There is a registered manager running the service. 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. The registered manager was present on the day of our visit.

There were effective systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. Various formal methods included quality monitoring visits by one of the organisations area managers and health and safety audits completed by the manager.

The home was clean and comfortably furnished. People had their own bedrooms, which were personalised with their own belongings. Equipment and furnishings were being purchased by the provider to meet people’s changing needs. Staff had received health and safety training that included basic first aid, infection control, moving and handling and positive behaviour support. People’s nutritional needs were met with meals that were appetising and cooked to meet individual needs.

People who use the service used a range of communication methods. These included non-verbal to limited verbal communication. Individual methods were supplemented by the use of pictures and objects of reference to indicate their needs and wishes, which were clearly understood by staff.

People received good quality care. Staff treated people with respect and kindness providing a service that was person centred. People were encouraged to live a fulfilled life with activities of their choosing and were supported to keep in contact with their families. However, there was no activity planner to promote recreational stimuli throughout the day for a person whose needs had changed. This was addressed by the provider and registered manager during our visit to improve incentives within recreational activities for the person.

There were robust processes in place to monitor the safety of giving people their medicine. People were supported to eat a healthy diet and they were helped to see their GP and other health professionals to promote their health and well-being.

The recruitment and selection process helped to ensure people were supported by staff of good character. There was a sufficient number of qualified and trained staff to meet people’s needs safely. Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns they had about the care and welfare of people to protect them from abuse.

People were provided with effective care from a staff team who had received support through supervision and training. Their care plans detailed how they wanted their needs met and these were regularly reviewed to ensure they were person centred. Risk assessments identified risks associated with personal and health related issues. They helped to promote people’s independence whilst minimising the risks.

The service had taken the necessary action to ensure they were working in a way which recognised and maintained people’s rights. They understood the relevance of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and consent issues, which related to the people and their care.

As part of this inspection we spoke with two people and observed interactions between staff and people who were using the services. We spoke with the registered manager, a representative of the provider and five staff. We also reviewed records which included three care plans, daily care records, staff training records and other records relating to the management of the service.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

People who spoke with us told us they would tell staff if they were worried about their safety or about the services provided and felt they would be listened to.

The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The manager was able to describe the circumstances when an application should be made and knew how to submit one.

People's care plans detailed how the person wanted their needs to be met. Risk assessments identified risks associated with personal and specific health related issues, and recorded guidance for staff to minimise those risks.

Staff knew how to report any concerns they had about the care and welfare of people and to protect people from abuse. Staff we spoke with confirmed they were given enough time to support people and felt they were provided with training that enabled them to do their job safely and effectively.

Is the service effective?

People we spoke with told us staff always supported them to access the community and promoted their independence within the home. We observed positive communications between people and staff and saw that staff respected the choices people made. People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with their wishes.

Is the service caring?

People experienced care and support that was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Staff had the skill and training to support the need of the people who lived in the home when providing care and support. We observed staff listening to people and respecting their privacy and dignity.

Is the service responsive?

Although the people we spoke with had not made a complaint, information was available for them in a format they could understand. this explained what they should do if they were not happy about the services provided.

Is the service well-led

The provider had a system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive. However improvements were needed, as identified from this visit, to review processes to receive regular feedback from people who use the service and their representative's about the service provided.

The home was new and it appeared in good decorative order and people had been able to make choices about how to personalise their rooms.

Staff appeared motivated and were looking forward to a new manager starting work. They felt safe at work and felt valued in their roles.

Care plans and risk assessments were not always up to date and did not clearly inform and drive care. People's physical health care needs were addressed.

People were encouraged and supported to maintain links with the local community and we saw that people accessed the local swimming pool and church. Staff also came into the home to offer more specialist and individual support for people including art and music therapy. People were also encouraged to pursue courses where the focus was on developing new skills and improving confidence and self esteem.

One of the visitors said they felt that people were very well supported and staff were very focused on them as individuals. Another regular visitor to the home described the staff as "brilliant; creative; caring and respectful".

At Kingwood - White Barn we found a programme of care that clearly supported individual's (or others acting on their behalf) with their needs, from the point at which there were referred to the service. This care programme ensured that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse.

All the evidence collected about staffing demonstrated that there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs and staff were positive about the training they had received and the usefulness of this in their role.

From the evidence collated it was also clear that people who used the service and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted upon. In addition there was a clear system in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided which included inspections against the CQC outcomes by a contracted external assessor.