Kenilworth Manor

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed

this.

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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The registered manager, or one of the senior team, assessed people’s needs prior to admission to ensure the home could safely meet these needs. Care plans were formulated to include people’s routines and preferences as well as their physical and clinical needs.

One healthcare professional told us, that when reviewing new patients, “I am able to obtain all the information I need and rarely have to ask the staff for any further information as a clear, robust care plan has been put in place.”

Staff knew people well, including their health and wellbeing needs. Staff told us they were encouraged to advise of any changes in people’s needs so care provision could be reviewed.

People’s care needs were assessed, and their records were updated regularly.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Care records were well maintained and reflected the care and support people received. The provider used recognised tools to assess, and monitor people’s risks around nutrition and hydration, skin integrity, pain and dependency. This ensured people’s care and support was planned and delivered in an evidence-based way. We reviewed people’s records and found these tools were being used effectively, with appropriate actions taken when needed.

People’s nutritional needs and risks were assessed and identified. Care records provided staff with guidance on how to ensure people had enough to eat and drink to maintain their health and mitigate any identified risks. We received extremely positive feedback about food standards within the home. One person told us, “The chef is remarkably skilled and considerate of individual needs.” A relative said, “The food is excellent; it looks and tastes nutritiously good.” People were supported to move to the dining room for their meals which encouraged them to eat and drink well and enjoy the companionship of others. Some people preferred to have meals in their bedrooms, and this was accommodated. Where people needed assistance from staff with eating, this was provided in an unhurried manner.

Catering staff told us information about people’s individual nutritional needs was shared with them. This included if people required a modified diet because they were at risk of choking or if they required extra calories because they were losing weight. Staff told us their training was regularly refreshed to ensure it reflected most up to date guidance.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their inspection of needs when people moved between different services.

One relative told us that their family member was visited at the home regularly by a medical professional. The relative was encouraged to be involved, and the registered manager ensured a representative from the senior team was present to record information. Following the appointment, a review was arranged to make sure the person’s care plan was updated and reflective of any new advice.

The home was supported by a clinical practitioner, who visited Kenilworth Manor weekly. They reviewed people who staff or relatives had raised concerns about and triaged to other services when necessary.

Staff told us information shared during the handovers between shifts was detailed and supported them to provide care that reflected people’s needs on that day. One staff member told us, “The handover is in depth and tells us what has happened over the last 24 hours, if anybody's needs have changed or if they have any appointments. It is not skimmed; it is a good handover and at the end they give a space to raise any concerns on the floor.”

We reviewed people’s care records and saw referrals were made to made to other healthcare professionals when needed. Any guidance and support was recorded and followed.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

One relative told us, “[Name’s] care needs change often. Some days they can take steps, but not others. Staff are responsive to this and encourage them to do as much as they can to maintain their mobility and independence.”

People could access routine healthcare appointments to maintain their health. Staff supported people to attend appointments and where this was not possible, arranged for them to be visited at the home.

Activities were planned to support people’s physical, mental and social wellbeing which helped them live healthier lives and maintain independence. One member of staff told us, "Any movement is better than no movement. Every Thursday we have chair activities and every fortnight we have a person come in who does more vigorous exercises. Leg movement is good for balance." One healthcare professional told us, “The staff have a very good understanding of [people’s] needs and are able to provide individual holistic care to suit [people’s] care, medical and social needs.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

One relative told us how their family member’s needs changed from day-to-day due to fluctuations in their physical health. This relative commented, “Staff know them so well. They monitor what they are capable of on that day and adjust the care they receive accordingly.”

Staff told us they monitored people when supporting them, reporting any concerns so people’s outcomes could be improved. For example, a member of catering staff told us how they monitored people so they could identify when they were not eating and drinking well. They explained, “If people aren’t eating well, we get the staff to sit with them and encourage them. Sometimes they are a bit tired and can’t manage their knife and fork and just need a bit more help."

Where people needed assistance to reposition to reduce the risk of pressure injuries to their skin, records were in place that demonstrated this was done regularly as specified in their care plan. This minimised the risk of them developing pressure damage.

Consent to care and treatment

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

We saw people made their own choices and decisions about what they did, what they ate and how they filled their time. One person told us, “I can make my own decisions.” Another person said, “Staff would ask before they do anything.” One relative told us, “They are big on consent. [Name’s] capacity can fluctuate, so they wait until they are ready and able to make decisions and encourage them to do so.”

Where people had capacity, staff encouraged people to make healthy choices but respected the person’s right to make decisions with risk. One staff member explained, "If the person has capacity, we can't force that person. We try and encourage them." Where people lacked capacity, staff understood decisions may sometimes need to be made in the person’s best interests to keep them safe and well. A staff member told us, "It is still their right to refuse. I would document it and let the nursing sister know. I have only come across it a few times when it has been a flat no, so then it is about getting the support of people who know that person well and the nurse."

The home had recently trialled a new innovative piece of technology to support people’s continence care. The home had ensured people had given their consent to participate in the trial, and where people had not wanted to participate, their choice had been respected.

Where people lacked the capacity to consent to decisions, Mental Capacity Act assessments and best interest decisions were completed. Capacity assessments outlined how people had been given the best opportunity to understand decisions to be made and who had been consulted in the decision making processes. This helped ensure decisions made were in people’s best interests.