Livability Kenway Court

Kenway Court is nursing home for up to 24 people with a range of disabilities and complex needs. At the time of our inspection there were 20 people living at the service, including young adults and people who were older. The purpose-built accommodation was set over two floors. People had access to communal living and dining areas and each en-suite room had a small kitchen area.

People’s experience of using this service:

The service was effectively managed by an established manager who promoted an open person-centred culture. A number of changes in the service had put pressure on the time of the registered manager, however there were measures in place to resolve this. A new deputy had been appointed and additional nursing and care staff were being recruited. The registered manager and provider carried out audits on the quality of the service and the additional staffing would support senior staff to carry out more robust and regular checks.

Staff supported people to remain safe, while respecting their rights to independence and choice. Risk assessments were detailed and gave staff the necessary guidance about the help people needed. Staff knew what to do if they were concerned about a person’s safety. The registered manager carried out thorough investigations into concerns and learnt from mistakes, using the information to make the service safer.

There were enough staff to keep people safe. We received feedback from people that staff were sometimes stretched, which would be addressed by the arrangements to increase nursing and care staffing. Medicine administration was carried out in a personalised manner by nurses who knew people well. Their attention to detail helped keep people safe.

Staff had the necessary skills to support people. Staff worked well together and with external professionals to promote people’s health and physical wellbeing. People had the choice of preparing their own food and drink or have their meals prepared by a chef. Care plans provided the necessary guidance to staff to ensure they could meet people’s complex needs and monitor their wellbeing.

The purpose-built property enabled people to maximise their independence. The registered manager met legal requirements when people did not have capacity. There was a focus in the service on supporting people to make their own decisions and to minimise restrictions on their freedom.

Support was flexible and reviewed regularly so it continued to meet people’s changing needs. The provider had invested in resources to ensure people’s lives were stimulating and meaningful. When people required end of life care, there were measures in place to ensure support was compassionate and personalised. People felt able to raise concerns about their care and be confident they would be dealt with promptly.

People were treated with dignity and respect. We discussed with the registered manager improvements in the way personal data was stored and kept confidential. Staff across the service communicated in a skilled and consistent way which promoted people’s rights to make decisions about their care.

Rating at last inspection: Good. The last report was published on 7 September 2016.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection to check that this service remained Good

Follow up: We will continue to monitor this service to ensure people receive care which meets their needs.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.

A registered manager was 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff had good knowledge of their responsibilities and how to keep people safe. People were cared for by staff who had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks had been completed. Permanent staff and agency staff had access to personalised, up to date information about people’s needs which meant they were effective in delivering appropriate care.

People were involved in the planning of their care and treatment which was delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and wellbeing. Developments were being made to document the inclusion of relatives in the review of care plans. Any errors were addressed by the service which ensured safe management of medicine administration and secure storage of medicines.

Effective care was provided by care staff. People’s rights were protected because management and staff understood the framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Management applied such measures appropriately and liaised with appropriate external parties.

Staff had received regular training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care. People had enough to eat and drink and staff understood, documented and met their specific nutritional needs. Staff and managers ensured access to healthcare services were readily available to people and worked with a range of health professionals to maintain good health of the people.

Privacy and dignity was valued by Staff were observed to be respectful and compassionate towards people and placed value on privacy and dignity. People had positive relationships with each other and staff who were supported to be as independent as they chose to be. People knew how to make a complaint and processes were in place to deal with them.

The registered manager had a number of ways of gathering people’s views including talking with people, staff, and relatives. These methods were being developed to drive improvements for the individuals. They carried out quality monitoring audits to help ensure the service was running effectively.

Staff we spoke with said they had been properly recruited and trained. Staff told us that they were supported in their roles.

People had the opportunity to enjoy a range of activities and, mostly with staff support, were able to get out and about in the local community.

We saw that people's care and support was planned and reviewed regularly. Risks to the health, welfare and safety of the person were identified and managed.

People using the service told us that they were satisfied with how they were treated, with the level of support provided and with the facilities and activities available. One person told us, "I like the staff and I'm happy here at Kenway Court.' Another person told us that, 'The food is lovely, I get plenty to eat and the staff are nice, they ask me about what I want to do and where I want to go.' One person said, 'I really like my room, staff keep it clean for me and I chose what colours I wanted for the walls and curtains, I'm content here.'

Staff at the service had a very good understanding of respecting people as individuals and supported them in ways that respected and upheld their rights.

People told us that they enjoyed the variety and choice of food available at Kenway Court. We found that people's nutritional needs were well assessed and monitored to ensure their ongoing wellbeing.

People living in Kenway Court mostly required assistance in managing their medicines. We found that there were safe procedures in place for this. Staff had received training and ongoing monitoring so that they managed people's medicines safely.

People praised the management and staff team at Kenway Court. We found that staff received a good introduction to the service and had opportunities for ongoing training to keep their skills up to date.

We found that the service had suitable systems in place to listen to people's views and to ensure a good quality and safe service.