Kingsthorpe View Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires Improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care. We found people were not always involved in the decisions around their care and support and we found no evidence how people’s, likes and preferences had been met. This was a breach of regulation 9 (person-centred care) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

This service scored 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people’s care and treatment was effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People told us they had not been provided with an opportunity to be involved int ehir care, and records demonstrated they had not always been involved in assessing their needs. However, the new management team had reviewed and updated people’s care records to ensure staff had clear guidance to follow in line with good practice guidance on falls, hydration, skin integrity and medicine management. For example, we found wound management plans provided staff with accurate and reflective guidance to follow to ensure people’s risks were managed. Where people were deemed to lack capacity to be involved, the management team were still in the process of providing all relatives with the opportunity to be involved in people’s care plan records where appropriate to ensure the information within records were accurate. When changes occurred to peoples care, staff were informed through a messaging chat group to ensure they were all aware of people’s assessed needs.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were supported in line with current standards. We observed improvements in ensuring people had access to fluids. We found drink jugs available in people’s bedrooms and in communal areas so people could help themselves to fluids as and when they wanted. Where people had been identified to be at risk of poor fluid and food intake, there were monitoring records in place. These records were reviewed by the clinical team to ensure people were eating and drinking enough. Where risks were identified, these were raised to staff through a group chat messenger to ensure staff were encouraging more fluids and foods. This meant there was an effective process in place to ensure people’s nutrition and hydration needs were met. People told us the food was good. One person said, “The food is not too bad. There’s a choice of what you want” relatives told us, “The food is nothing special, but everyone eats them, I don’t know how or when they are made but [person] always clears his plate.”

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. Staff were able to explain which professionals were involved in people’s care. Care plans demonstrate the guidance health professionals had shared. The provider had been working with the local authority and the NHS to make the necessary improvements and where actions were set by stakeholders, the provider had completed them. Another stakeholder that was working with the care home told us, “I have made 4 visits to the home, since November. Although I had rung ahead, the staff didn’t know I was coming. This has improved, and now the staff are ready for me, and there is good engagement with my ideas for the service users.”

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People continued to tell us there was nothing to do to stimulate them and to maintain the skills people had. There was no clear process or system in place to promote good physical and mental wellbeing. We observed people sitting with having nothing to do. This meant people were at risk of boredom which could have a negative impact to their mental wellbeing. The provider told us they had struggled to recruit an activities staff member and have been advertising since July 2024.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. We found there was no engagement with people who lived at Kingsthorpe View to obtain their feedback to review the monitoring and improvements to peoples care outcomes. People were not empowered to share their goals and wishes so that they could be supported to achieve these to promote good outcomes. There were improvements with involving relatives. There were monthly relative meetings. Records demonstrated clear actions and a review of actions at each meeting. Relatives were in the process of being involved in care planning where it was appropriate.

Consent to care and treatment was not always assessed. Where people were deemed to lack capacity to make decisions the management team were in process of completing meaningful and person-centred mental capacity assessments. Some assessments were completed however some were still outstanding. We were not fully assured where people could consent to their care and treatment if they had been offered the opportunity to review their care plans to ensure they understood the care being offered, allowing informed decision-making and consent to care. We were not assured that people who did not have family, friends or someone important to them to advocate for them and we were not assured advocates were offered to people where appropriate. We found where people had a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in place with conditions, the conditions were not always met. These conditions safeguard people who cannot consent to their care arrangements in a care home and are protected if those arrangements deprive them of their liberty. This meant there was risk of further restriction on the person’s liberty by not adhering to the conditions.