Kathryn's House

Updated 5 March 2022

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at how services manage infection control and visiting arrangements. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection prevention and control measures the provider had in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 28 February 2022 and was announced. We gave the service three days’ notice of the inspection.

Updated 5 March 2022

The inspection took place on 7 June 2018 and was unannounced.

Kathryn’s House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Kathryn's House provides care for up to 29 older people, some of whom were living with dementia and some who were living with other mental health support needs. At the time of our inspection there were 20 people living at Kathryn's House.

There was registered manager in post who supported us during 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.

There were sufficient skilled staff available to ensure that people’s needs were met promptly and people were not waiting for their care. Safe recruitment practices were in place to help ensure that only suitable staff were employed. Staff received the induction, training and support they required to carry out their roles.

People lived in a safe, clean environment which was adapted to meet their needs. Staff were aware of safe infection control practices and systems were implemented to help reduce the risk of people developing infections. Health and safety checks were completed to ensure the environment remained safe for people. The provider had developed a contingency plan which meant people would continue to receive safe care in the event of an emergency or unforeseen event.

Staff treated people with dignity and respected their privacy. People were supported to maintain and develop their independence and where relevant other professionals were involved in supporting people to achieve their goals. People’s legal rights were protected as the principles of the MCA were followed. People were offered choices and these were respected by staff. Visitors to the service were made to feel welcome.

Risks to people’s safety were assessed and control measures implemented to keep people as safe as possible. Accidents and incidents were recorded and action taken to prevent them happening again. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in safeguarding people from abuse and any concerns were reported to the local authority. People received support to remain healthy and healthcare professionals were involved in people’s care as required. Safe medicines systems were in place and regularly monitored to ensure people received their medicines in line with prescription guidelines. People were provided with a nutritious diet and choices were available. Specialist diets were catered for and staff were aware of people’s dietary needs. Regular feedback on the food provided was sought.

People and their families were involved in the assessment process and developing care plans. Regular reviews were completed of the care people received to ensure staff had the most up to date guidance when providing people’s support. Care plans included personalised information regarding people’s communication needs, life histories and how they preferred their care to be provided. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and preferences. The support people wanted when reaching the end of their life was recorded and staff understood the need to promote people’s dignity at this time. People had access to a range of activities, many of which were personalised and provided on an individual basis. People’s cultural and religious beliefs were respected.

People and staff spoke highly of the management of the service. Staff told us that they felt supported and knew that there was always someone available to help them when needed. We received positive feedback regarding the care staff from relatives and people living at Kathryn’s House. A positive culture had developed and the values of the service were upheld by staff. The registered manager conducted a range of quality assurance audits and action was taken where shortfalls were identified. Complaints were addressed in line with the provider’s policy and used to improve the service. People, relatives and staff were asked for feedback regarding their experiences and regular meetings were held to gain people’s opinions and suggestions.