We carried out a review of the data available to us about Kahala Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Kahala Court, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The provider was following best practice guidance in terms of ensuring visitors to the home did not introduce and spread Covid19 providing good information and support for all.
Staff were adhering to Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and social distancing guidance. People were supported to see their visitors in the specially designed pod or when this was not possible people were supported to speak to their families on the phone or via video call.
The provider had a clear policy designed for people who were admitted to the home from the community or from hospital.
Staff had completed training, including IPC training, handwashing training and donning and doffing training. Regular and frequent spot checks and competency checks were made to ensure staff continued to follow best practice guidance. Staff were trained and knew how to immediately isolate individuals with symptoms to avoid the virus spreading to other residents and staff members. All staff in high risk groups have been risk assessed, and adjustments have been made. Plans are in place to protect vulnerable staff in the event of an outbreak.
Kahala Court is a ‘care home’. 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. Kahala Court is registered to accommodate up to 32 older people in one adapted building. Nursing care is not provided by staff at Kahala Court. This is provided by the community nursing service. At the time of this inspection in March 2018 there were 29 people living in the home.
Kahala Court had a registered manager but this person was in the process of handing over to another manager who was not yet registered. During our inspection we spoke with the manager who was yet to be registered. 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.’
At our last inspection on 7 December 2015 we rated this service good. At this inspection on 31 March 2018 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 who lived in Kahala Court were protected from risks relating to their health, mobility, medicines, nutrition and possible abuse. Staff had assessed individual risks to people and had taken action to seek guidance and minimise identified risks. Staff knew how to recognise possible signs of abuse. Where accidents and incidents had taken place, these had been reviewed and action had been taken to reduce the risks of reoccurrence. Staff supported people to take their medicines safely and staffs’ knowledge relating to the administration of medicines were regularly checked. Staff told us they felt comfortable raising concerns.
Recruitment procedures were in place to help ensure only people of good character were employed by the home. Staff underwent Disclosure and Barring Service (police record) checks before they started work. Staffing numbers at the home were sufficient to meet people’s needs. Staff had the competencies and information they required in order to meet people’s needs. Staff received sufficient training as well as regular supervision and appraisal.
Staff treated people with respect and kindness. There was a warm and pleasant atmosphere at the home where people and staff shared jokes and laughter. Staff knew people and their preferences well. People spoke highly of the care and support they received at Kahala Court and the caring nature of the staff. Comments included “We all say aren’t we fortunate to be in a place like this”, “They are respectful and kind” and “They are absolutely lovely.”
Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and put it into practice. Where people had been unable to make a particular decision at a particular time, their capacity had been assessed and best interests decisions had taken place and recorded. Where people were being deprived of their liberty for their own safety the registered manager had made Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) applications to the local authority.
People were supported to have enough to eat and drink in ways that met their needs and preferences. Meal times were social events and people spoke highly of the food at the home.
People, relatives and staff were asked for their feedback and suggestions in order to improve the service. There were effective systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the care and support being delivered.
Further information is in the detailed findings below
Kahala Court is owned by the Devon Care Group and is registered to provide personal care for up to 32 people. On the day of inspection 30 people were living at the home. Fifteen people were living with some level of dementia which varied from mild to advanced. Kahala Court does not provide nursing care. People living at the home received nursing care and healthcare through the local community health services.
The inspection took place on 7 December 2015 and was unannounced. Kahala Court was last inspected in May 2013 when it was meeting the requirements that were looked at.
A registered manager was employed at the service. 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.
The registered manager was also the registered manager for another nearby service owned by the same registered provider. They were supported in their role by a regional manager who had responsibility for a small group of homes, and by a deputy manager and a team of senior carers. Staff told us they felt well supported by this staffing structure.
People’s needs were met in a safe and timely way as there were enough staff available. Staff received training that helped them meet people’s needs. For example, staff had received training in moving and transferring, infection control and caring for people living with dementia.
People and their relatives told us they felt safe. A visiting relative said “I feel really lucky, it is a fantastic feeling, to know that she’s in a safe place”. Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. Thorough recruitment procedures ensured the risks of unsuitable staff being employed were minimised.
Staff displayed a good understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This ensured people’s human rights were protected. People were asked for their consent before staff provided personal care. People’s needs were met by kind and caring staff who ensured people’s privacy and dignity was respected at all times. People said “It’s lovely here, the staff are very attentive...they are friends”, “I am happy here it is really nice” and “I feel very well cared for...I am very happy here”.
Staff ensured people received care and support that was responsive to their needs. One person told us “if there is anything I have wanted, they do it. They know what to do to look after me and they are fantastic”. Another said “All the staff are kind. I suppose because they know me as a person”. People and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care if they chose. One relative said “We filled in a care plan together”. People’s care plans contained details of how their needs were to be met and were reviewed regularly. All other records were also well maintained and stored securely.
People were supported to maintain good health. A healthy balanced diet was available and people saw their GP when needed. There were effective systems in place to manage people's medicines.
People were encouraged to make requests and suggestions about improving the quality of the service provided. For example, people had requested a clock for the sun lounge. A clock had been provided that also showed the day and date.
An activities organiser was employed for 15 hours per week. There was a regular programme of activities on offer including singing, word games, films and gentle exercises.
The registered manager was very open and approachable. Staff told us they felt well supported by the registered manager. The registered manager was keen to improve the service and one visiting healthcare professional told us “they are not adverse to improvement and have their ears open and looking to how they can improve”. Relatives and people living at Kahala Court were confident that if they raised concerns they would be dealt with efficiently. Visitors were welcome at any time and people told us they were always made welcome.
There were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor care. For example, there were regular audits of the environment, medicines and care plans.
The environment was well maintained and was suitable for people living with dementia. All areas were clean and free from offensive odours.
People we spoke with said they felt they had their care needs well met, agreed to the care they received and were able to make choices as part of their daily lives. One person said 'I am very satisfied, why wouldn't I be. All of the staff are lovely, the food is wonderful and it's such a pleasant room. I couldn't want for more.'
We saw that people had their care needs met and had access to specialist health services as required. Medicines were well managed at the home and care workers knew how to support people well.
Records were generally well maintained. Care plans were easy to follow and reflected the needs of people. However, a very small number of records had not been recently reviewed meaning some records did not reflect the care that was actually provided.
People had access to social activities and received support to maintain their spiritual beliefs.
People said they staff were "super" and "like family." They told us they felt safe living in the home. Staff knew what to do if they suspected abuse.
Staff said they enjoyed working at the home and felt supported by the manager. There was an effective programme of training and support at the home meaning care workers could provide care and support in a skilled and experienced way.
Clear assessments of people's needs had been made and plans and strategies were in place to meet those needs. Information was communicated well within the staff team and people's care plans were reviewed regularly. People were supported to access healthcare and the home worked well with health professionals. The home had staff with a range of experience, skills and training to meet people's needs.
We saw that staff interacted with people in a relaxed, friendly and respectful manner. Staff worked at the pace of each individual and encouraged independence. People who lived at Kahala Court had friendships within the home and social activities such as music, crafts and quizzes took place.
People told us that they felt safe at this home. They knew how to complain if they had concerns. Staff had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and recognising abuse. The home had procedures in place for reporting and responding to any concerns.
The home had systems for quality assurance. We saw evidence that when improvements had been identified at Kahala Court they had been acted upon.