Kenver House Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.People received care which was centred around their individual needs. We observed 1 person wiping over the tables after lunch and sweeping the floor. The staff told us the person liked to support with some domestic tasks in the home. This helped them to feel valued and appreciated. The environment was person centred and dementia friendly, with several lounge and seating areas for people. The garden had a brightly coloured caravan where people could spend time, this was mostly used during the summer months. The dining room had photos on the wall of outings and social events, which were held.People’s care plans had been written in a meaningful and person-centred approach. People’s records contained information about their likes, dislikes and background history. The staff knew people well.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.People received care from staff who worked within a consistent team. A number of staff had worked at the home for many years. People were allocated a key worker to ensure they had continuity of care. The provider avoided using agency staff, where possible to ensure staff who were familiar to them, were offered extra shifts first.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.People’s care records included information about how they effectively communicated with staff. Where required, important information such as the complaint’s procedure, were provided in accessible formats, such as easy read. Notice boards in the reception area and dining areas, included information about upcoming events and photographs from previous activities. Information was shared with people and relatives during review meetings and ‘resident and relative’ meetings.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.People and relatives were able to share feedback and make suggestions. ‘Resident and relative’ meetings were an opportunity for the registered manager to share information about the home and listen to any ideas. We gave feedback to the provider about adding in a section of any other business, to capture further information, about the meeting.The provider had a complaints policy and procedure, which was accessible to people and relatives. The deputy manager told us the home had not had any complaints in the last 6 months. We looked at the complaints log, and if a complaint was made processes were in place to respond. This captured the nature of the complaint, action taken and any learning. We spoke with the provider about capturing any concerns on this log, when they are raised about people’s care, even though a complaint had not been raised, this was alongside recording the information, within people’s notes, which was the current practice.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.People were given equal opportunities to the care they needed in a timely manner. This included requesting GP and district nurses’ visits, when a person was unwell. When people required emergency treatment, this had been escalated on the person’s behalf.People’s care records contained information about the equipment people needed to promote their independence. There were adapted facilities within the home such as bathing equipment, disabled access to the garden and adapted chairs to support people to overcome physical challenges.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.People were enabled to access areas of the home, this included lounge, dining areas, toilets and the garden. Some areas of the home required access by keypads. This included the reception area near the door, stairways and the lift. This was to help keep those people living with dementia safe. People received care and support tailored to their individual needs and circumstances. People had fair and equal access to health professionals when they needed, to help support with the positive health outcomes.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.The registered manager considered people’s wishes when planning events for the future, including end of life plans. People had the opportunity to express their wishes, and these were documented. Where people were not for resuscitation or hospital admission, this was clearly recorded. Where people’s relatives had power of attorney over health decisions, a copy of this was requested by the home. The deputy manager told us, they looked to care for people at the home where possible, who were end of life care. The district nursing team supported the home and the person, when end of life medicines and advice was needed.