• Care Home
  • Care home

Kernow House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Landlake Road, Launceston, Cornwall, PL15 9HP (01566) 461131

Provided and run by:
Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited

Assessment report published 30 September 2026

On this page

Effective

Good

22 September 2026

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 assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment 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.

Assessing needs

Score: 3

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were usually assessed before they went to live at Kernow House, unless it was an emergency admission. At pre-admission assessments, people’s needs relating to their physical and mental well-being were reviewed to help ensure the service was able to provide appropriate care and support. People and relatives told us they were involved in the implementation and reviews of their care plans.

Care plans were updated regularly and when people’s needs changed, to help ensure care remained in line with people’s needs and preferences. A community manager reviewed a ‘resident of the day’ so each person’s care plan would be reviewed monthly and updated to reflect any changes in how their care and support was organised. Relatives were also involved in care plan reviews where appropriate.

Delivering evidence-based care and treatment

Score: 3

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.

People’s care plans reflected their support needs and included enough information to enable staff to meet people’s needs.

People were supported in line with evidence based best practice. For example, some people had specific diagnoses such as Huntingdon’s Disease and dementia, staff attended training in these specialist areas to ensure their knowledge was updated and current best practice was understood relating to these health conditions.

How staff, teams and services work together

Score: 3

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 assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff shared information effectively to support consistent care delivery. Key staff had daily meetings each morning to review people’s needs, ensuring important updates were communicated to all staff members.

Staff told us they communicated well together and were kept up to date with any changes. Handover notes and regular staff meetings meant information was shared across the staff team.

The service made prompt and appropriate referrals to NHS services to ensure people’s needs were met. Any advice professionals provided was acted upon promptly and the registered manager ensured all necessary checks were completed.

Supporting people to live healthier lives

Score: 3

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.

Records showed staff made appointments with GPs, opticians and dentists when required to ensure people’s wellbeing.

People had access to a healthy diet. Meals were made using fresh ingredients and included a variety of fresh vegetables. The majority of people were complimentary about the quality and variety of food. People were asked each day what they wanted to eat from the daily menu but would be able to ask for an alternative if this was not appetising to them. Catering staff were aware of any dietary needs and prepared alternatives when required.

Staff encouraged people to eat their meals to promote their health and wellbeing. Staff were aware of the importance of diet and did not rush people to eat their meals but supported them at the person’s pace. A person commented “You can take as long as you like to eat your meal.”

Staff supported people to exercise, access the community and engage with their individual hobbies and interests. Some in-house activities included gentle exercise sessions. These were important to help people maintain their mobility and strength.

Monitoring and improving outcomes

Score: 3

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.

People told us staff noticed if they were feeling unwell. Comments included; “They would notice if I was unwell. The nurses are good” and “I tell them if I am not feeling well. The nurse will then come in and check me over. “

Staff monitored all people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. Care plans were detailed, personalised and provided guidance to ensure outcomes could be met, ensuring people received safe, consistent and effective support.

Staff monitored people at risk of declining health so they were aware of any changes. Indicators of concern were recorded in care plans. Some people needed support to move to protect them from developing poor skin integrity. Records were completed to evidence this was completed in line with care plans.

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

Care plans showed people who were able to, had consented to their plan of care. When there were power of attorney arrangements this was documented.

Staff asked people before providing care and consistently offered people choices about how and where they spent their time. Staff described how they respected people’s decisions and the action they would take if they declined care. Their approach focused on encouraging people to accept personal care without pressurising or imposing support on them.