Kenver House Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred 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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.The management team and the staff supported people to reach their full potential, with a person-centred approach embedded with the home’s values. The staff team knew people very well and understood the challenges they faced. Support was tailored to meet people’s individual needs. Staff demonstrated strong relationships with people and a proactive approach to safety and wellbeing. One staff member told us, “As a team of staff, we like to continuously get to know people and add value to their lives.”The provider operated an on-call system for the staff and the managers. This was for advice and to report any concerns in relation to people’s care or the building out of office hours.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.The home had a stable management team. The registered manager and both deputy managers had worked at the home for a number of years. At the time of our assessment the registered manager was taking planned absence. The provider and both deputies continued to support the home. Staff, people and their relatives spoke positively about the leadership of the home. They felt supported at work and said the management team were approachable.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff felt confident to speak up, if they needed to about any concerns. The staff meeting minutes evidenced that staff openly discussed any concerns and made suggestions. The deputy manager told us, they had a good supportive relationship with staff, with an open-door policy. The provider sent out staff surveys in October 2024, and the results were overall positive. They asked questions around the leadership of the home.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.The provider employed a diverse workforce from varying backgrounds and cultures. The deputy manager demonstrated good insight into promoting and supporting a diverse culture of people and staff. Some of the staff employed were on sponsorship. The deputy told us they had supported the staff and their families, to help settle into the country and within their role. They had helped them and their family access health care, housing and to get to know the local amenities.Staff who needed workplace adjustments were supported, with a flexible working policy in place. The staff supported people from all cultures and backgrounds, without discrimination. People’s religious beliefs were identified through their initial assessment at the home and reviewed ongoing.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.The management team had good oversight of the home. This included of risk, medicines and the quality of people’s care and support. The registered manager, deputy’s and the team leaders, completed daily, weekly and monthly quality checks. This included the auditing of the environment, medicines management, care and of health and safety.The provider also completed monthly audits of the home. We spoke to the provider about improving the audit tool, which they used. This should record the number of care records, staff recruitment files and medicines recorded, which were audited and conversations with staff and people. Where any shortfalls, or areas for improvement were required then an action plan was developed and demonstrated when these had been addressed.The provider was aware of their statutory responsibilities to notify the Care Quality Commission (CQC) about certain changes, events and incidents that affected the home. These notifications were submitted appropriately.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.The home was part of a local community, where staff supported people to have links. People visited the local museum, cafes, shops and schools. The local school also visited the home. The staff told us the school were due to visit to sing Christmas carols. The home had links with other local care homes.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.The management team used information from audits, feedback, incidents and safeguarding referrals to improve the home. The staff meeting minutes evidenced, they worked with staff to understand how things went wrong and involved them in finding solutions. Lessons learnt were shared and acted on to improve the home. The registered manager and deputy attended the local authority care home provider meetings, to keep up to date with information and best practice.The provider looked to learn and continuously improve the home. Quality assurance surveys were sent out to people, friends and family in March 2025. The overall results from the survey were positive about the home. One relative had given feedback in the survey. They said, “My mum has been welcomed and encouraged to live a fulfilled life at Kenver House.”