Kite Hill Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The provider’s processes to ensure people received person centred care were not always effective. Care plans did not always contain sufficient guidance for staff to manage specific conditions and enable them to provide consistent support to people.

Some people living with dementia had a lack of detailed information in their care plans to support staff to understand how their dementia impacted them as a person and how to support them through their dementia journey.

Staff we spoke with knew people well, however relatives raised concerns around consistency of care in line with people’s needs.

The providers care plan audits had not identified the concerns we identified on this inspection.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

We saw evidence in people’s records which confirmed access to health care professionals, such as GPs and district nurses. Professionals we spoke with were positive about the way the service worked with them and about the support they provided to people. A professional told us, “Professional input is always requested in a timely manner,” and “Feel a good relationship between care home and [professional]”. However, we identified some care records contained shortfalls in information, for example, specific health needs and dentistry requirements.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider followed the Accessible Information Standard, which tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss get information in a way they can understand. For example, staff told us that different formats would be used such as large print if required to support people’s communication needs.

People’s communication needs were assessed, with information recorded about how staff should communicate with them. This included information on any equipment used to improve communication, such as glasses and hearing aids. However, we did identify 1 person who did not have a communication care plan in place, this person required glasses and hearing aids to assist their communication needs.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People were provided with written information about the service and how to complain should the need arise, via the provider’s service user guide. Complaints had been appropriately managed, with records showing concerns were investigated and action taken where required.

People we spoke with told us they had not needed to make a complaint, but they would feel comfortable to raise a complaint if required. Comments included, “I would talk to a senior if I had a complaint, I’m very confident action would be taken” and “I would complain to the seniors if I had a complaint, I would definitely be listened to and action would be taken.”

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider did not consistently identify or address barriers that affected people’s ability to access health, care and wellbeing services. This particularly affected people with disabilities or higher support needs who were unable to access services independently. Where people were unable to leave the care home, the provider did not consistently make appropriate arrangements for health and wellbeing services to be provided within the home.

The provider did not consistently assess people’s individual needs or provide staff with sufficient information to ensure people received appropriate support. For example, oral health information in some care plans lacked sufficient detail about the level of assistance people required, how support should be provided, their individual oral health needs and preferences, and the expected outcomes of support. The provider had not completed oral health risk assessments to identify and manage individual risks. This meant staff did not always have the information they needed to identify emerging dental problems or take timely action, increasing the risk that people’s oral health needs would not be addressed appropriately.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Whilst we observed activities taking place in the communal areas, we did not observe people who spent time in bed or in their rooms receive meaningful activities. The provider told us room-based activities were available for people who chose to remain in their bedrooms; however, during our observations none were provided.

Furthermore, the records of activity provision that the provider sent us did not consistently demonstrate how meaningful activities were being delivered. Records demonstrated limited activity offered or provided for people who spent time in bed or in their rooms. This placed people at risk of social isolation.

People we spoke with who spent time in their bedrooms about the level of meaningful activities available and whether they had access to these gave mixed feedback. Comments included, “Sometimes” and “I spend most of the time in bed, I’m a bit of a loner, but I see the staff regularly and am quite happy.” Another person told us, “I don't go downstairs as don't like all the chit chat,” and “Feel isolated at times as I spend all day in the chair or bed watching TV.”

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People’s end of life care plans were basic, not person-centred and contained shortfalls in information. Whilst some plans contained information about people’s cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions and funeral directors, there was no information or guidance to support staff throughout a person’s palliative journey to final breaths. This would be to ensure that peoples’ wishes during the final stages of their life were respected.

Similarly, end of life care plans did not include or fully detail information in relation to people’s spiritual and cultural needs, involvement of family and friends, reassurance about pain management and rapid support to anticipatory medicines.