About the service:

Kingsway Care Home provides accommodation for up to eleven people who need help with their personal care. The home supports people who live with a learning disability and other complex support needs. At the time of the inspection eleven people lived in the home. The home has a combined communal lounge and dining area, a second quiet lounge for people to share and a back garden for people to enjoy.

People’s experience of using this service:

The overall rating for this service is ‘inadequate’ so therefore the service is in special measures. This was because the service was found to be in breach of Regulations 9, 11, 12, 17 and 18 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

There was no adequate or effective systems and processes in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. This resulted in people being exposed to ongoing risks with regards to their care.

The provider’s fire safety arrangements were unsafe. There was no evidence that any staff had practiced how to evacuate people from the home in an emergency for over two years. People who lived in the home also did not have personal emergency evacuation plans in place. This meant should an emergency arise, emergency personnel would not have important information about people’s needs and support requirements in an emergency situation.

People’s needs and risks were not properly assessed or managed. Where people had health conditions, their care plans did not always contain sufficient information about these conditions and the support they required.

Records showed that the support some people received was inconsistent and unreliable. People’s care was not personalised to their needs as staff lacked adequate information on what these were in order for them to do so.

People’s support was not always appropriate. CCTV was used to monitor people’s movements in communal areas without their consent and the language used in some care records was not very respectful.

Where people’s capacity to consent to decisions about their care was in question, the provider had not always followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure that any decisions made on people’s behalf were legally consented to and in the people’s best interests.

The management of medication was not safe and the manager failed to demonstrate that they understood safe medication practices within the home.

The provider’s complaints procedure did not meet the Accessible information standard and did not provide relevant information to people on how to complain to in the most suitable way for them to understand.

There was little evidence that information about the service such as accident and incident information, safeguarding and resident meetings were used to learn from and improve the service.

Information in respect of people’s eating and drink needs was limited and the preparation of one person’s special diet did not follow recommended advice. People told us they were happy at the home and said they got enough to eat and drink. During our inspection, we saw that staff members treated people kindly and with respect.

People had the support of other health and social care professionals. For example, dentists, opticians, GP’s as well as specialist medication teams for any medical conditions.

Staff told us they felt supported by the manager and records showed staff received supervision in their job role. Staff received training and training was up to date.

Regular meetings took place with people who lived at the home and their views and opinions on the activities they would like to become involved in sought. We saw that people enjoyed a range of social and recreational activities. For example, knitting, horse riding, barbecues and college.

The atmosphere at the home was warm and homely.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Rating at last inspection and wh