We carried out a review of the data available to us about Stonham Kingston House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Stonham Kingston House, you can give feedback on this service.
Stonham Kingston House is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to a maximum of 6 people, who live in their own flats. It provides a service to people who may be living with a learning disability, mental health conditions or a drug or alcohol problem. Some people share their flats with another tenant. The property is split into three flats, a resource room, a bedroom for sleep in staff and an office. The flats comprised of two bedrooms and people shared a shower room, toilet, lounge/kitchen/dining area and hallway. At the time of the inspection, five people were receiving support.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
Stonham Kingston House was last inspected on 6 January 2016. The overall rating for the service was good. This inspection has found the service has improved it’s rating from good to outstanding.
There was a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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 caring and inclusive culture at the service was outstanding. Without exception, people spoke very highly of the staff; they developed honest and genuine caring relationships with people using the service. Staff recognised people as individuals and went the extra mile to welcome and include them in the service. Staff considered all aspects of people’s lives and not just the care and support they required. The service had a fantastic approach to equality, diversity and human rights whilst supporting people to identify and address discrimination.
People were supported to achieve their goals, through excellent person-centred care. Positive risk taking was encouraged throughout the service, balancing the potential benefits and risks of choosing particular actions over others; allowing people to reach their full potential through greater independence. Innovation and creativity was used in meeting people’s needs and staff used happiness as a preventative strategy to crisis. Strong community inclusion enabled people to live fulfilled and meaningful lives, through accessing a wide variety of local activities, education and volunteering opportunities.
The service was exceptionally well-led by a registered manager who led by example and had embedded an open and honest culture. Staff were committed to working at the service as the management team valued and invested in them. Quality assurance systems were robust and used regularly by the registered manager and the provider. They shared best practice and strove to continually improve the service. The provider created opportunities for people to monitor and inspect the service; developing the service in the way that mattered to the people who used it. Improvements were driven by engagement with people using the service and staff; their views were valued and drove positive changes within the service.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People’s choices and decisions were respected. Staff sought consent and followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when people were unable to make an informed decision. People’s hydration and dietary needs were met by staff who had received relevant training. Staff had regular supervision, that was thorough and had appraisals completed. Information was available to people in their preferred format and in a way they could understand.
People’s safety was maintained as staff had good knowledge how to safeguard people. There was appropriate staffing levels and people were supported by staff who had required skills and knowledge. People had appropriate support, ensuring their care needs were met. Medicines were managed safely and the provider maintained a comfortable and safe environment. Recruitment processes were robust and included people who used the service. The service invested in staff development and promoted progression. Supervision and appraisals were used to maintain staff well-being and high standards of care.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This inspection took place on 6 January 2016 and was announced. The registered provider was given 24 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in. This was the first time the service had been inspected since registration.
At the time of the inspection, five people were using the service.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were cared for by staff who had received training in how to recognise abuse and how to report this to proper authorities. Any accidents or incidents which occurred were analysed and changes made where needed. Any learning was shared with the staff. Staff who had been recruited safely were provided in enough numbers to meet the needs of the people who used the service. People who used the service were involved with the recruitment of staff and formed part of the interview and assessment panel. Assessments had been undertaken which identified how staff should support people to keep them safe, these were reviewed with the person and changed and updated when needed. People were supported to take their medicines safely and staff had received training in this area. Auditing systems in place ensured any discrepancies with people’s medicines were identified and dealt with quickly.
Staff were trained to meet the needs of the people who used the service, this was updated as required. Staff were also supported to gain further qualifications and experience. The majority of staff held a nationally recognised qualification in caring, or were working towards achieving this. People who used the service were involved with some of the staff training; some of the people who used the service had volunteered to take the lead role for equality and diversity and health and safety. People were supported to lead a healthy lifestyle; this included eating a healthy diet and attending appointments with their GP and other health care professionals. Staff were trained in, and understood the principles of, the Mental Capacity Act [MCA] and understood when and how these principles applied.
People were supported by staff who were kind and caring and understood their needs. People had good, relaxed, open relationships with the staff and interaction was respectful. There was also a lot of laughter and sharing of jokes which created a safe, friendly atmosphere. People were involved with the formulation of their support plans and had signed to confirm they had understood and agreed the content. Staff respected people’s dignity and they were provided with the space to exercise their right to privacy.
People’s needs had been assessed and staff were provided with information about how to best support them and keep them safe. These were updated regularly and people had the opportunity to make written comment about their progress and how their care and support was developing. People were supported to undertake activities which included maintaining and developing independent living and domestic skills. People were also supported to choose and attend college courses which were part of their agreed goals. People were supported to access sporting and leisure facilities to either spectate or participate. People had the opportunity to make complaints and these were acknowledged and investigated to the complainant’s satisfaction. People were also provided with information about outside agencies they could approach to raise concerns.
Consultation, in the form of surveys and meetings, was undertaken with people about the running and development of the service. Others who had an interest in people’s welfare were also consulted. Specific time-restricted action plans were developed to address any shortfalls in the service. Staff were consulted about the running of the service; the registered manager held regular staff meetings so they could air their views and share information. The registered manager undertook regular audits to ensure people were provided with a well-run, safe service.