Kenver House Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff had positive relationships with people and relatives. We observed the staff treated people with kindness and dignity. Each person had a named keyworker who helped to oversee their care. Where possible people were matched with staff who shared the same interests. We observed the staff cared for people with compassion and helped to maintain their dignity. Some people wore an apron at mealtimes to protect their clothes. We observed 1 staff member encouraging a person, with dementia to walk to the toilet. As the staff member was walking with them, we heard them say, “It’s like we are dancing. What is your favourite dance?” It was clear that due to this interaction being kind and supportive, the person was able to receive personal care. People’s privacy was respected by the staff closing doors when people received personal care. The staff knocked on toilet and room doors before entering. The staff discreetly asked people when they required assistance with personal care.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.People were cared for by staff, who knew them well. The deputy manager told us they looked into people’s background history and got to know what was important to them. 1 person was able to live in the home with their pets. A staff member told us, “The person’s pets were important to them, and it was important they were not separated.” People’s room doors were in the style of a front door and had the room number displayed. They were all differently coloured doors. Outside of people’s rooms were wall mounted frames holding photos of people, family and friends. This supported people to orientate themselves to their room. This was unique for each person.People’s religious needs were supported by the staff. A church service usually took place at the home. However, this was on hold temporarily, whilst waiting for a new vicar to be appointed. People told us, that they had a good relationship with the local church and could contact them if support was needed.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.People were supported to have meaningful choice and control over how they spent their day. Staff worked in a person-centred way to enable people, to access a wide range of activities that reflected their preferences, wishes and aspirations. People were supported with activities at the home and within the local community. The home had a generic activity plan on display, outlining what happens each day on a usual week. This included, darts, skittles, crafts and a singer every Wednesday afternoon. One staff member had organised a recent Halloween party. One person told us, “The Halloween party was brilliant”.

People were encouraged to make day to day decisions, when able to. This included their daily routines, what they wanted to wear, to eat and how they spent there day. Where people were unable to make these decisions, the staff used their knowledge and had got to know people well.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.Staff listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Overall, we observed the staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. We gave feedback to the provider as we did observe at lunch time, 1 person was distressed. The staff could have responded to this in a timelier manner, by offering them their lunch first to help ease this distress. We observed other more positive interactions throughout the day, where staff had comforted people.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.Staff wellbeing was supported by the management team and provider. The registered manager and deputy monitored the staff’s wellbeing, to ensure they were not working excessive hours. Staff breaks were allocated to ensure they had the opportunity to have regular breaks. The provider had a flexible working policy where staff could request to work flexibly. All requests were considered, and the outcome was based on if this could be accommodated. One staff member spoke positively about the support they had received, when requesting to change their hours.