Archived: Kestrel Grove Nursing Home

Kestrel Grove nursing Home is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 53 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 57 people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Systems and processes were in place to keep people safe and risks associated with people's care needs had been assessed. There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and recruitment processes and procedures were robust. Medicines were managed safely. The service was clean, and there were appropriate procedures to ensure any infection control risks were minimised.

Staff received training and supervision in order for them to perform their role. People's nutrition and health were supported and promoted. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff knew people well and care plans were, detailed and provided staff with clear guidance on how to meets people's needs. Staff respected people privacy and dignity and encouraged people to remain independent. People and relatives could express their views about the running of the home.

People received outstanding personalised care and support which met their needs, reflected their preferences and promoted their self-worth. People benefitted from an excellent variety of activities, events and trips out that were available to reduce social isolation, give meaning and purpose and enhance their wellbeing.

The service provided exceptional and compassionate end of life care and took into consideration the needs of relatives and friends. Relatives praised the care and support both they and their family members received at this sensitive and emotional time.

The service was well led. People, staff and relatives spoke extremely positively about the registered manager and the provider. There was a positive culture throughout the service which focused on providing care that was personalised. The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. They were aware of their regulatory responsibilities associated with their role.

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

The last rating for this service was good (report published 05 January 2017). The service remains good.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Kestrel grove is registered to provide accommodation for up to 57 older people who require nursing and or personal care. At the time of the inspection 57 people were using the service.

The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

People felt safe living at Kestrel Grove. Staff understood how to keep people safe and risks to people's safety and well-being were identified and managed. The home was calm and people's needs were met in a timely manner by sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff. The provider operated robust recruitment processes which helped to ensure that staff employed to provide care and support for people were fit to do so. People's medicines were managed safely.

Staff received regular one to one supervision from a member of the management team which made them feel supported and valued. People received support they needed to eat and drink sufficient quantities and their health needs were well catered for with appropriate referrals made to external health professionals when needed.

People and their relatives complimented the staff team for being kind and caring. Staffs were knowledgeable about individuals' care and support needs and preferences and people had been involved in the planning of their care where they were able. Visitors to the home were encouraged at any time of the day.

The provider had arrangements to receive feedback from people who used the service, their relatives, external stakeholders and staff members about the services provided. People were confident to raise anything that concerned them with staff or management and were satisfied that they would be listened to.

There was an open and respectful culture in the home and relatives and staff were comfortable to speak with the registered manager if they had a concern. The provider had arrangements to regularly monitor health and safety and the quality of the care and support provided for people who used the service.

We saw that staff were knowledgeable about people's needs and promoted their independence. We found that they had a good understanding and awareness of people's care needs and preferences. We saw that care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed and updated.

People told us that there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet the needs of the people who lived in the service. All of the people we spoke with were extremely complimentary about the staff, activities and the varied choice of meals. One person who used the service told us, "If you had to live in a home then this is where it should be." Another person told us "Staff escorts me to my appointments and the staff knows my little ways." Another person told us that "I have been able to negotiate core team of five staff who are very aware of my complex needs, this means that I have consistency in how my care is provided.

We found that people were not protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

People were satisfied that there was plenty of activities if they wanted to get involved.

People told us how their privacy and dignity was respected and that staff always closed the doors when they're helping with personal care. Although some people told us that not all staff knock and wait before entering their room.

We observed the home to be visibly clean on the day of our visit; all the people appeared to have had their personal care needs met.

Staff told us how they enjoyed working at the home and felt supported by management.

Overall the service was meeting standards although we did make some minor comments to the provider with regards to care plans, audits and the training record for one person.