Kynance Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. Feedback from people was positive, with one person telling us, “Carers are very kind, all staff lovely and helpful,” and another describing how staff “never rush” them when providing personal care. Staff spoke about people in a caring way and we observed examples of kind and compassionate care, where staff took time to reassure people and respond to their needs.

External professionals also spoke positively about the caring approach of staff. One professional told us, “All the staff are very kind and caring and certainly meet the residents’ needs.” They also described how staff supported people to feel comfortable and reassured.

The provider treated people as individuals and made efforts to ensure people’s care, support and treatment reflected their needs and preferences. Care plans contained information about people’s routines, choices and backgrounds, and people described being involved in decisions about their daily lives. People told us they were able to make day-to-day decisions about aspects of their care and routines, including what time they got up and went to bed and where they chose to spend their time.

The service had a consistent staff team who were able to describe people’s individual preferences and demonstrated they knew people well.

However, we identified that people did not always receive care in line with their preferences. As detailed in other sections of this report, care was sometimes delivered at times that reflected the needs of the service rather than individual choice. This meant that person-centred approaches were not consistently applied in practice.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. People were supported to maintain independence and retain control over their daily lives. People told us they were able to make choices about their routines, including when to get up, go to bed and how to spend their time, and they were supported to make decisions about food, drinks and participation in activities.

Care plans were detailed and include information about what people could do themselves and what they required support with. People had access to mobility aids and at lunch time we saw people were provided with adapted crockery and cutlery and received support when required. Staff understood people’s rights to make choices. Involvement in menu planning and activities also supported people to retain a sense of control and influence over their environment.

People were supported to engage in activities that reflected their interests and preferences. Some people spoke positively about activities available within the home, including exercise sessions and social activities, and described how staff supported them to take part or spend time in communal areas if they wished.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Some people told us that waiting times for assistance were mainly acceptable, although this could vary depending on how busy staff were. People also told us call bells could be frequent, with one person describing them as “nonstop,” particularly at night when staffing levels were lower. Day staff started early in the morning, which supported increased staffing presence during busy periods and helped meet people’s needs at key times of the day.

We observed people were not always responded to promptly, and times where there was limited engagement from staff in communal areas. We also observed positive interactions, including during activities, which showed staff were able to engage meaningfully with people. However, this was not consistent throughout the day. This reduced assurance that people’s immediate needs were consistently recognised and responded to in a timely way. These findings were discussed with the management team.

Staff felt supported in their roles and were able to raise concerns where required. Staff told us they were happy working at the service and felt able to speak openly with members of the management team. The management team were described as approachable and responsive to staff, and staff felt their views, opinions and suggestions would be listened to.

The registered manager demonstrated an understanding of the need to support staff with individual circumstances, including making reasonable adjustments where required for staff with social, religious or cultural needs. Staff described occasions where they were able to take short notice leave due to personal or family commitments, which demonstrated a flexible and supportive approach.