Kenver House Limited

Kenver House Limited is a care home that provides accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care to 30 older people. The service is provided in accommodation over two floors. At the time of the inspection, 28 people were living at the home.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

We were introduced to people throughout our visit and they welcomed us. People were relaxed, comfortable and confident in their home. The feedback we received from relatives was good. Staff we met and spoke with were happy and proud of the care they provided.

All staff understood their responsibility to keep people safe from harm. People were supported to take risks and promote their independence. Risks were assessed, and plans put in place to keep people safe. There was enough staff to safely provide care and support. Checks were carried out on staff before they started work to assess their suitability to support people in a care setting. Medicines were well managed, and people received their medicines as prescribed.

Staff had received training to meet the needs of people using the service. They had also received regular supervision and an appraisal of their work performance. The registered manager and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were supported with maintaining a balanced diet and the people who used the service chose their meals and these were provided in line with their preferences. People were encouraged to attend appointments with other health care professionals to maintain their health and well-being.

Staff were caring, and people were treated with kindness and respect. Staff knew people well and understood how to communicate with them. People's privacy was respected, and their dignity and independence promoted. Staff had a good awareness of individuals' needs and treated people in a warm and respectful manner.

The service was responsive to people’s health and social needs. People’s care records were reflective of people's individual care needs and preferences and were reviewed on a regular basis. People knew about the service's complaints procedures and knew how to make a complaint. People were supported and helped to maintain their health and to access health services when they needed them.

People benefitted from a service that was well led. The management promoted a positive culture that was open and transparent. The registered manager demonstrated good visible leadership and understood their responsibilities. Quality assurance practices were robust and used to make improvements. Staff were motivated and reflected pride in their work. They talked about people in a way which demonstrated they wanted to support them as much as possible and provide the best standards of care.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Kenver House Limited on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection took place on 8 and 9 December 2016 and was unannounced. The previous inspection was carried out on 19 September 2013. We had no previous concerns prior to this inspection.

Kenver House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 30 people. At the time of our visit there were 28 people living at the home. The registered manager told us the home had two vacant beds. The home also provided day-care to people.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the home is run.

Most people could not directly tell us about their care and support because of their cognitive impairment. We spent time at the home observing how people were cared for by staff. Throughout our inspection people were cared for and treated with dignity, respect and kindness.

The registered manager and staff understood their role and responsibilities to protect people from harm. Risks had been assessed and appropriate assessments were in place to reduce or eliminate the risk.

People were provided with safe care by adequate numbers of appropriately skilled staff being made available. Staff recruitment procedures were safe and the employment files contained all the relevant information to help ensure only the appropriate people were employed to work at the home.

People were given their medicines in the right amounts at the right times by senior staff who had been trained to carry out this task. All medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely. The home had policies and procedures for dealing with medicines and these were adhered to.

The home was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had received appropriate training, and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the DoLS.

Staff appeared to be caring and we observed positive caring relationships with staff and people living at the home. People told us they were happy with their care.

People had access to a range of healthcare professionals when they required specialist help. Care records showed advice had been sought from a range of health and social care professionals.

People had their nutritional needs assessed and monitored and were supported to enjoy a range of food and drink of their choice throughout the day.

Concerns and complaints were encouraged and responded to and people knew how to complain and share their experiences. People living at the home, relatives and staff were encouraged to provide feedback, as were professionals. Compliments were received in abundance and displayed on a notice board.

The home was well led and management promoted a positive culture that was open and transparent. The registered manager demonstrated good visible leadership and understood their responsibilities. Quality assurance practices were robust and records and data were collected and used to make improvements.

Care plans recorded peoples' individual care needs, preferences and their health needs. We spoke with three family members who confirmed their relative's needs were met and that they had no concerns. They said that if they had a problem they would go straight to the manager. We were told the food was good and 'Nothing needs to improve, they (the staff) are so loving'

People told us that staff were caring and said 'The girls are good' and 'they are friendly, they are respectful'.

The home was generally clean, and areas to be maintained had been identified. Some areas that were in need of cleaning were carried out immediately.

People who use the serviced, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on. The provider made visits to the home and spoke with people and their families on a regular basis.

We carried out observations of people's care and interaction with staff. Some people were spending time in the lounge and were involved in activities. Others were in their own rooms whilst some others were walking freely around parts of the home. We saw that staff interacted fully with people and were respectful in their conversations.

Some people were more relaxed than others, with some not so comfortable in each other's company. Staff were aware of their needs and approached them in a sensitive way.

We looked at people's care files and saw that their needs had been assessed and their care and treatment had been planned and delivered in line with their individual needs.

We looked at other records to ensure that people's safety was being maintained. We saw there were sufficient, trained and supervised staff on duty to support people with their needs. Health and safety and management audits had been carried out regularly to help monitor the quality of the service.