Kernow House

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 remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

We identified a strong emphasis on providing person-centred support. People’s individual needs and preferences were taken into account when planning care.

People’s care plans were detailed, informative and accurately reflected their needs. They contained sufficient information to enable staff, who did not know people well, to provide effective person-centred care.

Staff involved people in decision making and responded promptly to any requests for assistance.

However, there was limited information to inform, direct and guide staff when a person was displaying anxiety, the registered manager responded to this immediately and care plans were updated.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service had built strong working partnerships with healthcare professionals such as GPs, physiotherapists, the speech and language team and Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) services. [PEG feeding is a medical method used to deliver liquid nutrition, fluids, and medications directly into the stomach through a flexible tube placed in the abdomen].

Staff proactively escalated any concerns to the relevant agency to help ensure timely interventions. People were supported to arrange and attend regular appointments

Feedback from professionals confirmed the service worked collaboratively with other agencies. An external professional who visited the service regularly told us, “The registered manager and team are always open to any ideas and suggestions in relation to patient care and support needs, I have had the pleasure of working alongside them for a number of years now.”

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

Care plans included information about people’s communication needs, for example if they used hearing aids or needed glasses for reading. Some information was presented in pictorial as well as written format so that information was relayed in a meaningful way for the individual.

Relatives told us the service communicated openly and effectively and shared information about any changes to people’s needs promptly.

Leaflets were available for children to explain the care provision available for their loved ones to help them understand the environment and the care being received.

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.

We met with the residents ambassador who gained views from people about their experience of the service and relayed this to the manager for consideration. They were confident their views were listened to and acted upon. For example, following feedback a cafe club had been set up where people could access filter coffee.

Resident and relative meetings were organised to give people a platform to share their views on how the service was organised. In addition, people and their families were asked for their views annually via a survey. People and relatives commented “We attend the residents’ meetings; they are a good opportunity to talk about the home and if there are any issues they ask for our ideas.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff treated people fairly and ensured they were able to access care and support services when required. People were confident and comfortable in their home and staff responded positively and promptly to people’s requests.

Healthcare professionals visited the service regularly. For example, a member of staff from the GP practice visited the service regularly and completed annual reviews.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff demonstrated a non-judgemental approach to caring in their discussions with us. For example, staff described how they supported people when they were distressed to help ensure they were reassured and safe.

The environment was arranged so people could access all parts of the service and take into account their individual needs. For example, bathrooms had grab rails and mirrors set at a height suitable for people in wheelchairs.

People were 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.

Care plans contained information about people’s wishes at the end of their lives. When people were unable, or reluctant, to discuss this, records showed families had been asked to provide information.

Local clergy visited the service regularly and held services with residents and spoke with people individually so people’s spiritual preferences could be met.