Kerwin Court

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.

People had individualised care plans that contained information which was personal to them and included their choices and preferences. Where appropriate, relatives had been involved in the planning and ongoing care and support their loved ones received. One relative said, “I am the guardian for my loved one and they keep me updated and respond to my requests in a timely manner.” Staff members understood the meaning of person-centred care. One staff member said, “Person centred care is tailoring everything we do to keep the person at the centre of their care, know their wants and have their needs taken into account.”

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 provider worked closely with the local GP practice and other healthcare professionals such as the SALT team (speech and language therapist) when needed, to ensure peoples care and support reflected their needs as they changed. One professional, when describing their experience of working with the provider regarding people’s care, said, “I have always found Kerwin Court to be very professional and helpful when managing a person’s discharge.”

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

Where needed, information was given to people in different formats including the ability to print in easy read with large font. One staff member told us when describing supporting people to understand information, “Some people we support couldn’t communicate verbally so we received training to help us understand how to support people with different communication needs, care plans say how to do this for each person, for example you can use drawings or writing and gestures.”

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

People and their relatives where appropriate were involved in decisions about their care and kept updated when changes were made. The provider used surveys to gain people’s views and feelings about their experience at the service with a ‘you said we did’, outcomes were then shared with people. There was a separate survey for staff to provide feedback and a suggestion box for people to anonymously share ideas around improvements. A staff member said, “A resident told BBC radio about our support when their rehabilitation had finished which was so positive and really nice to hear”. One person told us, “They provide my support to meet my goals.” The service had also included people in the recruitment process in the form of asking potential new staff questions they placed value in.

People could access services when they needed to, without physical or digital barriers, including out of normal hours and in an emergency. Physical premises and equipment were accessible.

People were supported to overcome barriers to ensure equal access. People told us that they had access to healthcare when they needed it and that they received support to make calls to their GP. The provider had considered accessibility throughout the layout of the building. People had access to rehabilitation areas including a kitchen with lowered areas to enable people who use a wheelchair to take part in daily life activities and work towards their goals. When describing their experience of accessing the building, one person told us, “Access is easy, enough doors are easy to get through and the door to my room has a special wheelchair sensor that opens the door for me when I approach it.”

The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes.

People were supported by staff who received training in equality and diversity and understood how to recognize discrimination. One relative said when describing the staff, “They’re eager to help in any way they can and are always warm and welcoming.” Care plans contained information about people who needed support with their mobility and how to include people in their support, highlighting personal strengths. When describing adjustments made for their loved one a relative said, “They support [loved one] with their dietary requirements it’s all catered for which helps [loved one] and wasn’t an issue for them to work around.”

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

At the time of the assessment the service was not supporting anyone with end-of-life care but had responded to people’s changing needs in the past by providing the staff with end-of-life training and worked with healthcare partners to identify appropriate placements for people. A staff member when describing the providers approach to support said, “After a staff member passed away, they supported us to go to their funeral which was kind of them.”