Kerwin Court

Updated 27 August 2020

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place. As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are conducting a thematic review of infection control and prevention measures in care homes.

This inspection took place on 14 August 2020 and was announced. The service was selected to take part in this thematic review which is seeking to identify examples of good practice in infection prevention and control.

Updated 27 August 2020

This was a comprehensive inspection which took place on 8 January 2019 and was announced. Kerwin Court is a ‘care home’ that provides personal and rehabilitation care for up to 23 people, on the day of inspection there were 16 people living at the service. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service is a purpose built two storey service, with private on suite bedrooms, shared communal areas and bathrooms. People living at the service had sustained an acquired brain injury (ABI), required treatment for substance misuse, or had other chronic health conditions.

The service did not have a registered manager in post on the day of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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. Day to day charge of the service was carried out by a manager and we saw documentation that showed they were in the process of registering with the CQC.

At our last inspection we rated the service 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 inspection we found the service remained Good.

People remained safe. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and there were systems and process in place to keep people safe. There were robust systems in place to manage, administer, store and dispose of medicines. The provider ensured staff were suitable to work at the service before they started. We observed people’s needs being responded to in a timely manner. The service was clean and infection control procedures followed.

People’s needs and choices were assessed prior to people moving into the service, and they were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff continued to support people in the least restrictive way possible. People continued to enjoy a balanced diet and remained supported to access healthcare services as and when needed. Through the design and adaptation of the premises continued to assist people with their independence and rehabilitation.

Care continued to be personalised to meet the needs of individuals including their care, rehabilitation, social and wellbeing needs. The provider ensured there were systems in place to deal with concerns and complaints. End of life care was considered at the service if required.

We observed positive interactions between staff and people, staff knew people well and had built trusting relationships. People’s independence and rehabilitation continued to be promoted and developed, staff supported people in a dignified manner and people’s privacy continued to be respected.

The service remained well-led and robust and effective quality assurance systems and processes were in place to assess, monitor and drive improvements in the quality of care people received. People, staff and relatives remained engaged and involved in the service provided. The culture of the service continued to be positive and respected people’s equality, diversity and human rights.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.