Archived: Kingwood - White Barn

Updated 16 August 2016

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

This inspection took place on the 7 July 2016. It was carried out by one inspector and was unannounced.

Before the inspection the registered manager completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at the PIR and at all the information we had collected about the service. This included previous inspection reports and information received from health and social care professionals. We also looked at notifications the service had sent us. A notification is information about important events, which the service is required to tell us about by law.

During our inspection we observed care and support in communal areas of the home and used a method called Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk to us. We spoke with the registered manager, organisations director, area manager and four staff. We also spoke with six relatives of people who use the service.

We looked at three people’s records and records that were used by staff to monitor their care. In addition we looked at one staff recruitment file. We also looked at staff training records, duty rosters and records used to measure the quality of the services that included health and safety audits.

Updated 16 August 2016

This inspection took place on the 7 July 2016 and was unannounced.

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.