CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 18 Kings Park Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found robust risk assessments, safe medicine management, enough staff and appropriate safeguarding arrangements. The home had also learned from previous incidents and introduced new systems to respond earlier to signs of anxiety or distress.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed in detail and support plans were regularly reviewed. Staff had autism-specific training and supported people's health, food choices, independence and access to other professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were involved in writing their care plans, making decisions and setting goals for greater independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was personalised and adapted to people's changing needs, preferences and goals. People had activities, work or college, social opportunities and information in formats suited to their communication needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found strong leadership, teamwork and quality monitoring. Staff felt listened to and supported, and the home used incidents, complaints and feedback to make improvements.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and strong leadership, while noting the home was registered for more people than current guidance supports.
This was a planned inspection over two visits. One inspector spoke with three of the four people living there, staff, relatives and a health professional. They also reviewed care, medicine and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were described as happy and relaxed. Inspectors found that staff knew people well, supported their choices and helped them become more independent.
The home is registered for up to nine people, although four people lived there during the inspection. Inspectors said this service model was not originally designed in line with newer guidance favouring smaller homes. The provider was exploring how to address this.
Kind and respectful support
People said they were happy and felt listened to. Inspectors observed relaxed, positive relationships between people and staff.
“They consistently told us how they were listened to and treated with exceptional kindness and respect.” from the report
Good risk management
Risks were assessed in detail and staff had clear guidance on reducing risks and supporting people when they became upset or distressed.
“Risk assessments were robust and captured the unique risks people faced from and to others, towards themselves, and any relevant risk history.” from the report
Promoting independence
People were encouraged to make choices, set goals and develop everyday life skills at their own pace.
“People wrote their own care plans so that staff could follow their own guidance on how they wished to be supported and cared for.” from the report
Personalised care
Support plans reflected each person's needs, wishes, preferences and goals. Staff adapted their support to the individual.
“Assessments were unique to each person and contained information and guidance specific to each person’s needs and wishes.” from the report
Improved leadership
Inspectors found significant improvements in how the home was led since the previous inspection. Staff described an open and supportive culture.
“There was a positive culture at the service where staff felt listened to and supported.” from the report
Size of the home
minorThe home was registered for up to nine people, which inspectors said did not fully fit newer guidance that favours smaller numbers of people living together. The provider was exploring how to meet those principles.
“It would be highly unlikely that we would register this model of service now when considering applications for services for people with autism.” from the report
Supervision arrangements had needed updating
minorStaff had previously said supervision did not always cover their wellbeing and development. The provider had introduced a new format, and staff gave positive feedback about it.
“Following feedback from staff that staff supervisions did not always focus on their wellbeing and personal development.” from the report
- 01How do you decide whether a new person will be compatible with the people already living here?
- 02What changes have been made after the previous incidents involving people becoming anxious or upset?
- 03How will you apply the current guidance about smaller numbers of people living together?
- 04How are people involved in writing and changing their care plans and behaviour support plans?
- 05How do staff supervision meetings now support staff wellbeing and personal development?
This was a planned inspection of the care and premises, covering all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was also Good, with Well-led improving since the last inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 June 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, September 2016
Cambian Asperger Syndrome Services Limited - 18 Kings Park Road was rated Good overall, but inspectors found weaknesses in management support and leadership.
The inspection was unannounced and took place over three days in August 2016. The inspector spoke with people living there, relatives and staff, observed care, checked the building and reviewed care files, medicines, incidents, complaints and quality records.
The home was rated Good for being safe, effective, caring and responsive. Inspectors found suitable staffing, strong risk assessments, safe medicines practice, trained staff, personalised support and good access to healthcare and activities.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being well-led. The registered manager was not always available, staff did not always receive enough support after difficult incidents, and checks did not properly review incident records or debriefs.
People had temporarily lost access to supermarket shopping and cooking practice. The provider listened to feedback during the inspection and said it would return to supermarket shopping. Inspectors also found one staff member had spoken disrespectfully to a person.
Safe medicines
Medicines were securely stored and given only by trained staff. The records checked by inspectors had no gaps.
“Medicines were managed safely, securely stored, correctly recorded and only administered by staff that were trained to give medicines.” from the report
Detailed risk planning
Risk assessments covered activities such as independent travel and unsupervised activities. They helped people have freedom while managing known risks.
“Each person had an individual risk assessment in place which linked to their behaviour support plans.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff understood people's needs, preferences and communication styles. Behaviour support plans gave clear advice about preventing and responding to distress.
“These plans ensured that staff had the information required to respond appropriately to behaviours presented by people which may challenge the service.” from the report
People's views acted on
People could give feedback through house meetings, individual time and surveys. Inspectors saw examples where feedback led to repairs and changes.
“This demonstrated that people were listened to and that the service learnt from people's feedback and experiences.” from the report
Community activities
People were supported to attend local events, volunteer and look for work. Activities reflected their interests and social needs.
“We noted that one person had been supported to volunteer on a stand.” from the report
Management visibility
needs fixingPeople and staff said the registered manager was difficult to find at times. The manager was running two homes and had attended only two staff meetings in the previous year.
“The registered manager was not always present at the home and had only attended two staff meetings during the past 12 months.” from the report
Support after incidents
needs fixingStaff did not always receive a debrief after incidents involving aggression or threats. The on-call process did not clearly say what managers should do.
“Quality monitoring did not include incident recording which meant that opportunities for staff to receive debriefs with management did not always take place.” from the report
Loss of daily living practice
needs fixingPeople were not being supported consistently to shop for food, cook or help with household tasks. This reduced opportunities to build budgeting, cooking and independence skills.
“People were not supported to go food shopping at local supermarkets which restricted them from learning key daily living skills” from the report
Disrespectful communication
minorInspectors heard one staff member speak disrespectfully to a person. Management had an action plan and reviewed that staff member's performance.
“However, one staff member was heard being disrespectful to a person.” from the report
Professional boundaries
needs fixingSome staff felt management had closer relationships with certain staff and people. Inspectors said this did not support an open and inclusive culture.
“Professional boundaries between management and staff were not always set or clear.” from the report
- 01How often is the registered manager now present at the home, and who is available when they are away?
- 02What is the current on-call procedure after an incident involving aggression or threats?
- 03How are incidents now checked, recorded and followed by staff debriefs?
- 04How are people supported to shop for food, plan budgets, cook and take part in household tasks?
- 05How do you monitor professional boundaries and respectful communication between staff and people?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with observations, discussions and reviews of care, medicines, incidents, complaints and quality records. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 September 2016 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of 18 Kings Park Road
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 December 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
37 live-in carers within about an hour of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,000 to £1,340 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We could not have managed without her calm, reassuring presence and practical knowledge and skill in caring and supporting both my husband and the family and I.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.