We considered our inspection findings to answer our five questions; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well-led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and looking at records.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
At the time of our inspection we found the service was safe because people's rights and dignity were respected and they were involved in decision making about risks.
People told us they felt safe living at the home and with the staff.
We saw that risks to people had been assessed and plans were in place to minimise any risks.
People's care and support monitoring records were completed and regularly reviewed to ensure they received the right care and support.
Staff were trained in safeguarding and knew how to report any allegations of abuse.
Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to involve appropriate people, such as relatives and professionals, in the decision making process if someone lacked the mental capacity to make a decision.
CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DOLs). We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the legislation. Applications had been submitted appropriately, policies and procedures were in place and we found staff to be well informed.
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and concerns. This reduced the risks to people and helped to continually improve the service.
Is the service effective?At the time of our inspection we found the service was effectively meeting the needs of all the people who used the service. Staff had a good understanding of people's needs and responded to changes in their needs in a timely way.
People told us 'it is very good here', 'we have a choice of menu and food is excellent', 'they give us a list of things we can do each day' and 'you get privacy if you want it.' People told us they could go to bed and get up whenever they chose.
People, or their representatives were involved in their assessments and developing their care plans.
People received appropriate support from healthcare professionals when required.
Newly appointed staff received an induction prior to starting work which included a period of shadowing more experienced staff and a probationary period of three months.
People's end of life wishes had been planned for. People and their relatives told us they were involved in decision making. We saw evidence of advocacy services being used to support people where they did not have any family or representatives and required support in making some decisions.
The premises had been sensitively adapted to meet the needs of people with physical impairments.
Is the service caring?
At the time of our inspection we found the service to be caring as people were treated with dignity and respect and were listened to.
People spoke positively about the care they received and that staff were kind, caring and compassionate. One person told us 'I really rate it 'and 'The staff know me really well, I don't like going to bed and that's ok.'
People's privacy and dignity was always maintained. We saw staff maintained people's dignity during personal care and during moving and handling.
We saw people's preferences and dislikes were clearly recorded and respected. Life histories were recorded along with lifestyle choices, this meant staff had all the information to be able to care for and support people as individuals.
Is the service responsive?
At the time of our inspection we found people received a service that responded to their needs. We saw people had their capacity assessed in relation to making decisions, and best interest decisions were made in consultation with relatives, staff and professionals.
We saw a GP from the local practice had been asked to see a person who was unwell. They told us 'They always call us appropriately and in a timely way, they are pretty good.'
People told us they had access to call bells when they required assistance. We were told by most people the staff responded quickly, but one person told us 'Staff don't always come as quickly as I would like when I ring the call bell but they are usually tied up with someone else.' This person told us this happened occasionally and it was usually due to staff being required to assist another person who was unwell. This person told us 'staff levels have improved recently and it has not happened for a while.'
Kenwyn had two activity co-ordinators who planned and organised activities throughout the four units of the home. We saw some evidence of people receiving 1:1 activities in their rooms. Staff told us they enjoyed spending time with people having a chat or encouraging them with some activity.
We saw the complaints procedure was available to people. Many compliments and thank you cards had been received by the home, praising the care received.
People's views and experiences of the service were sought and any issues were responded to promptly.
Is the service well ' led?
At the time of our inspection we found the service was well-led, staff told us the registered manager was approachable, supportive and had made a real difference to the service.
Observations and feedback from people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals was that the culture of the home had improved and become more open and transparent. This was because people, relatives and staff said they felt listened to by the manager and that action was taken when they raised concerns.
The management had systems in place to assess and monitor the service provided.
There were robust systems in place to monitor the safety of the building and equipment.
Staff had begun to receive regular supervision and appraisals.