Kingswood Mount is a purpose-built building. It lies in a large plot of land, with its sister home, in a residential area of Liverpool. It is registered to provide accommodation and nursing care for up to 45 people and at the time of our inspection, there were 45 people living there. It has two floors which are accessible via a lift.

At our last inspection we rated the service overall, as good. The well led domain have been rated as requires improvement. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of good and well led had improved to good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Why the service is rated good.

We found that the home was a safe environment for people, who were supported by staff who had been recruited appropriately. Staff administered medication correctly and followed the policies and procedures of the provider. There were appropriate staffing levels to meet people’s needs. People were treated without discrimination and their human rights were protected and promoted. Staff knew how to safeguard people from abuse and how to report any concerns about this or any other accident or incident.

The building had been purpose-built and it was safe and well maintained.

Staff were well-trained and supervised and had the skills and knowledge to deliver effective support to people living in the home. They understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and worked with other agencies to ensure that people had the right support. 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.

Staff treated everybody with kindness and compassion and involved them in decision-making about their day-to-day lives. They promoted people’s equality and diversity, gave explanations and information in a way that people could understand and respected people’s well-being and right to privacy.

We observed that the staff treated people as individuals. The records we saw demonstrated that each care plan was individual to the person. People and their relatives told us they were involved in any reviews about their family member’s care plans.

The people who lived in Kingswood Mount could join in with various activities throughout each day.

The home worked well with other health and social care professionals to provide support to each individual person who lived.

The home completed various quality checks and audits including questionnaires to people using it, their relative’s and health and social care professionals. The service was improving some of its systems, such as ensuring annual appraisals for staff and was introducing new documentation.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This inspection took place on 10 and 11 February and was unannounced.

The home was in a purpose built building which had been built some years previously. It was situated in its own grounds and was adjacent to its sister home. It had recently been purchased and the new owners had renamed it as Kingswood Mount and they were in the process of refurbishing and redecorating it.

The home was registered to provide care and accommodation for up to 45 people. Due to some internal room changes, there were now 44 single rooms available and at the time of our inspection, there were 41 people living in the home. The home contained 24 nursing beds and employed registered nurses to support and care for all the people in the home.

The home required a registered manager. 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 home did not have a registered manager in post, but a manager had applied to become registered with the Care Quality Commission and was awaiting the outcome of the application. The manager had general overall responsibility for Kingswood Mount and its sister home, but mostly ‘The Mount’ was managed by the deputy manager. We found that the home was part way through a refurbishment and redecoration programme and had several rooms had been redecorated and refurnished. This had been done with regard to the needs of people who lived with dementia.

Staff had been recruited safely and had knowledge about abuse and how to report it. There were appropriate safety systems in place and plans were available to evacuate the building in an emergency.

Medicines were generally stored and administered well by trained staff. There were sufficient staff on duty with various skill sets and qualifications to support people through the day and night. Staff were able to show was that they had been trained and well supported in recent months.

The home complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and its associated Deprivation of Liberty 's Safeguards.

We saw that people were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of food and fluids and were able to do this a pleasant communal setting or choose to have their meals in their room.

We observed that staff were caring, kind and professional in their interactions with the people living in the home and with relatives, other visitors and visiting professionals. Staff promoted people’s privacy, diversity and dignity and where possible enabled people to be as independent as possible. They supported people at end of life with compassion.

Care plans were becoming person centred and we saw that care was actually delivered in a person centred way. There was a variety of activities for people to do and where people had had cause to complain this had been dealt with properly.

The home was managed routinely by a deputy manager who was open and transparent and had taken responsibility for improvements within the home. Systems had been set up to monitor the quality of the home and were completed in a timely manner. Action was taken where issues had been found through the use of the systems and the issues were rectified.