You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 26 January 2019

Kenilworth care home in Loftus, Redcar and Cleveland provides accommodation for up to 20 older people who require personal care. At the time of inspection, there were 19 people using the service.

At our last comprehensive inspection we rated the service as good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this comprehensive inspection we found the service remained good.

People were safeguarded from the risks of abuse. Staff understood and managed the risks to people to make sure they remained safe, however records relating to risk needed to be improved. Staff did not always recognise the risks posed from the environment. We asked the registered manager to take action to ensure the kitchen door always remained closed because the cooker was next to the door where people and staff regularly passed. A cooling fan was put in place to protect staff from excess heat in the kitchen. Staff followed infection prevention and control procedures and the registered manager took action to put toilet roll holders in place when we asked them to during inspection. Recorded water temperatures showed they were above safe temperature limits without action taken to address this. No harm had come to anyone as a result of these risks to the environment.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysis carried out. Certificates to maintain the safety of the building were up-to-date. Fire safety checks had been completed regularly. Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff on duty at all times. Good systems were in place to manage people’s medicines. There was evidence that lessons had been learned when incidents had taken place.

Detailed assessments were carried out before people moved into the service. People were supported with their health care needs and care records detailed guidance from health professionals. People were involved in planning menus and referrals for nutritional support were made when needed. Staff were supported by way of induction, supervision, appraisal and training.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The environment was in need of updating. Some improvements had been carried out and an improvement plan was in place.

People told us they were cared for by staff who knew them well. Nothing was too much trouble and their privacy and dignity had always been maintained. Although the care records did not detail people’s involvement in their care, people told us they had been involved in planning and reviewing their care. Care records detailed people’s communication needs and information was given in people’s preferred formats.

Staff provided person-centred care to people which supported them to be as independent as they could be and to live fulfilled lives. Care records supported staff to do this. An activities co-ordinator supported people with activities of their choice and people were complimentary about these. Everyone we spoke with knew how to make a complaint and told us they had confidence that appropriate action would be taken to address their complaint. No-one was receiving end-of-life care.

People and staff were very supportive of the registered manager and of each other. They all worked together to deliver safe care to people. Feedback had been sought via meetings and surveys. The auditing process had been reviewed and more robust audits had been put in place. The provider regularly visited the service and sought feedback from people and staff during this time. Action plans were in place to continue to develop the service. The

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 26 January 2019

The service was not always safe.

Staff understood and managed the risks to people. Risks posed from the environment were not always recognised.

There were sufficient staff on duty to keep people safe.

Good systems were in place to manage people's medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 26 January 2019

The service remained good.

Caring

Good

Updated 26 January 2019

The service was safe.

Responsive

Good

Updated 26 January 2019

The service was safe.

Well-led

Good

Updated 26 January 2019

The service remained safe.