You are here

Archived: Kettlewell House Nursing Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 January 2017

Kettlewell House nursing Home offers personal and nursing care for up to 29 people who are living with moderate to severe dementia. There are a further 10 care suites available on site, including four flats in the grounds where more independent adults live. At the time of our inspection, staff were providing care and support to 37 people.

The inspection took place on 30 November 2016 and was unannounced.

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

We carried out this fully comprehensive inspection to see what action the provider had taken in response to the shortfalls we had previously identified. We found during this inspection that the provider had made the improvements needed and was now meeting the regulations.

People were safe because there were enough staff on duty to meet their needs. Risks to people had been assessed and measures implemented to reduce these risks. There were plans in place to ensure that people would continue to receive their care in the event of an emergency. The provider made appropriate checks on staff before they started work, which helped to ensure only suitable applicants were employed and staff understood safeguarding procedures.

People were supported by staff that had the skills and experience needed to provide effective care. Staff had induction training when they started work and on-going refresher training in core areas. They had access to regular supervision, which provided opportunities to discuss their performance and training needs.

Staff knew the needs of the people they supported and provided care in a consistent way. Staff monitored people’s healthcare needs and took appropriate action if they became unwell. People medicines were stored safety and administration practices for medicines were robust.

The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People’s best interests had been considered when decisions that affected them were made and applications for DoLS authorisations had been submitted where restrictions were imposed upon people to keep them safe.

People enjoyed the food provided and could have alternatives to the menu if they wished. People’s nutritional needs had been assessed and staff were knowledgeable on people’s individual likes and dislikes in relation to food. Information contained in people’s care plans helped staff to ensure that people received the care they required.

People had positive relationships with the staff who supported them. Relatives said that staff were kind and caring. The atmosphere in the home was calm and relaxed and staff spoke to people in a respectful manner. Staff understood the importance of supporting people to remain independent as well as treating them with respect and allowing them their own privacy.

The registered manager provided good leadership. Relatives told us the service was well run and that the registered manager was open and approachable. They said the registered manager had always resolved any concerns they had. Staff told us the registered manager provided good leadership and they felt supported by her. They said they worked well as a team to ensure people received the care they needed.

The provider had an effective quality assurance system to ensure that key areas of the service were monitored effectively. Where suggestions had been made these were used to develop and improve the level of care that was provided to people.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 January 2017

The service was safe.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs.

People were protected by the provider’s recruitment procedures. Staff were knowledgeable in their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding.

People’s medicines were managed safely and risks to people had been identified and guidance in place to reduce these risks. Accidents and incidents were monitored.

There were plans in place to ensure that people’s care would not be interrupted in the event of an emergency.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 January 2017

The service was effective.

The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the MCA and DoLS.

People were supported by regular staff who had appropriate support and training for their roles.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and individual dietary needs were met.

People were supported to obtain treatment from external healthcare professionals when they needed it.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 January 2017

The service was caring.

Staff were kind, compassionate and sensitive to people’s needs.

People had positive relationships with the staff who supported them.

Staff treated people with respect and maintained their privacy and dignity.

Staff encouraged people to maintain their independence.

Relatives were welcomed into the home.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 January 2017

The service was responsive to people’s needs.

People’s needs had been assessed to ensure that the service could provide the care they needed.

Care plans had been regularly reviewed to ensure they continued to reflect people’s needs.

Staff were aware of people’s individual needs and preferences and provided care in a way that reflected these.

People had opportunities to take part in activities.

The service responded promptly to any concerns or complaints people had.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 January 2017

The service was well-led.

There was an open culture in which people were encouraged to express their views and contribute to the development of the service.

Staff had opportunities to meet together as a team and they felt they worked well together and the registered manager was supportive.

The provider had implemented effective systems of quality monitoring and auditing.

The registered manager met their obligations in relation to the registration with CQC.