Kenver House Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People's needs were assessed before they moved into the home. This was to ensure the environment was right for them and staff could meet people’s needs. The deputy manager was aware of the needs of people that could and could not be met by the home. The admissions assessment, helped to form the person’s care plan. The provider used a number of assessment tools which guided the staff. These included eating and drinking and skin integrity.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People’s nutritional needs and preferences were supported in ways that respected their individual needs and choices. The menus were thoughtfully prepared using a 2 weekly menu and was suited to the seasonal months. The menu was accessible, and people were supported to make choices. People were encouraged to socialise at mealtimes. We observed the lunch time and found people were not rushed. Some people enjoyed an alcoholic drink with their meal. We gave feedback to the provider as we observed, bringing out meals from the kitchen to the dining room was slow, on the day. This meant that people were kept waiting for longer. Staff monitored food and fluid intake and recorded this information within people’s daily notes. We asked people and their relative’s what the food was like at the home. A person told us, “The food is nice, there’s plenty of it. On the nighttime when I’m in my room they bring me supper.”

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. We found evidence the provider worked as a multidisciplinary team. This included the staff and working with external health and social care professionals. People’s care plans evidenced who was involved in their care and this was kept under review. We requested feedback from professionals and overall, this was positive. A professional mentioned the registered manager had not always engaged well when training had been offered by an external professional. We spoke to the provider about this. They told us they are engaging with training, but it was felt at that time the staff had already received this training.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.People’s day to day wellbeing was recorded in people’s individual daily notes. The staff worked closely with healthcare professionals, to meet the needs of people who lived at Kenver House. This included their GP who carried out a weekly ward round and the community nurse team. People’s healthcare needs were assessed and planned for to show how the staff would meet these.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.The staff monitored people’s care and treatment to ensure people received good outcomes. Staff involved people in planning their care and support to ensure it reflected their preferences. People’s care plans were reviewed monthly, or sooner if needed to capture any changes in people’s needs and risks. Some people had been identified as at risk of dehydration. The staff kept their records up to date and sought medical advice, when required.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.People were supported to make their own decisions about their care. People’s care records contained information about people’s capacity and how they were able to refuse or give consent for specific decisions. Where people lacked capacity, assessments had been completed and best interest decisions made. The staff had received appropriate training in relation to mental capacity awareness. They had a good understanding about the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.Where people were deprived of their liberty a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) was in place to legally authorise this. The management team kept track of these and knew when they were due to expire, or if there were any conditions to meet and the reason it was in place.