Kenwood Care Home

Kenwood Care Home is a service for older people who need nursing care. The care home can accommodate 32 people across two floors, each of which has separate adapted facilities. The service provides care to older adults. People live in their own bedrooms and have access to communal facilities such as bathrooms, lounges, and activities areas. At the time of our inspection, there were 26 people living at the home.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People had access to healthcare services and were involved in decisions about their care. Partnerships with other agencies and health professionals enabled effective outcomes for people.

People's care was planned and risks to their safety and wellbeing were assessed. The service reviewed these plans regularly, involving people in these reviews and asking for their opinions.

Staff had completed safeguarding training and understood their role in identifying and reporting any concerns of potential abuse or poor practice. Medicines were managed safely.

People and staff praised the managers of the service and agreed that they were approachable, knowledgeable, fair and did their job well. The staff team worked well together and supported the registered manager.

The staff team was committed to providing a high-quality service. They had undertaken training so that they were skilled and knowledgeable to effectively meet people’s needs. Staff understood their responsibilities to report any concerns.

Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible and respected people’s privacy and dignity.

Staff consistently strived to ensure that people had the best possible care, and that they were supported in a compassionate, dignified, and safe way

People were given choices about the way in which they were cared for. Staff listened to them and knew their needs well.

Care plans contained information about each person’s individual support needs and preferences in relation to their care and we found evidence of good outcomes for people.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff worked at the service.

The managers of the service actively sought the views of people and their relatives about the running of the service, and they dealt promptly with any concerns that people raised.

The provider had systems in place to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided. There was a positive culture throughout the service. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service and felt valued.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

At the last inspection we rated this service Good. The report was published on 23 April 2018

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service. This report only covers our findings in relation to the key Questions safe and well Led. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

Kenwood care home can accommodate 32 people across two floors, each of which has separate adapted facilities . The service provides care to older adults. At the time of our inspection, there were 22 people living at the service.

We found the following examples of good practice.

•The provider had appropriate arrangements for visiting to help prevent the spread of Covid 19. All visitors were required to complete a risk assessment and a track and trace form, prior to entering the building. Visitors had their temperatures taken on arrival and were screened for symptoms of acute respiratory infection before being allowed to enter the home. They were supported to wear a face covering and maintain hand hygiene during their visit. The service had a garden area with a Gazebo to facilitate safe visiting for families.

•The provider had appropriate arrangements to test people and staff for Covid 19 and was following government guidance on testing. There was a designated team of staff that carried out all testing on people and staff at the home. This ensured that people and staff were tested for Covid 19 in a consistent way.

•The provider ensured that staff received appropriate training and support to manage Covid 19. All staff had received training on Covid 19, infection control and the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). They received guidance on supporting people with dementia to understand Covid 19. Staff wellbeing was supported when they became unwell and when they returned to work.

•There were sanitiser points available throughout the building and thorough cleaning was done daily and weekly sanitation using a fogging machine of communal areas and bedrooms was also undertaken.

•Chairs in the lounge and dining areas had been arranged to ensure social distancing measures were in place.

•All people admitted to the home were required to have a test before admission and appropriate systems were in place to ensure safe transfer.

•The provider ensured that people using the service could maintain links with family members and friends. People were supported to keep in touch by phone and virtual technology.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Kenwood care home can accommodate 32 people across two floors, each of which has separate adapted facilities. The service provides care to older adults. People live in their own bedrooms and have access to communal facilities such as bathrooms, lounges and activities areas. At the time of our inspection, there were 28 people living at the service.

The provider is required to have a registered manager as part of their conditions of registration. 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 the time of our inspection, there was a registered manager in post.

At our last inspection in January 2016 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 on-going 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.

We found people were protected against abuse or neglect. People had personalised risk assessments tailored to their support requirements. We saw sufficient staff were deployed to provide people's support.

The service was clean and infections were prevented and controlled.

The service was compliant with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated codes of practice. People were assisted to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practise.

Staff received good induction, training, supervision and support. This ensured their knowledge, skills and experience were appropriate for their caring roles. People's care preferences, likes and dislikes were assessed, recorded and respected.

We found there was appropriate access to other community healthcare professionals. People were supported to maintain a healthy lifestyle. People had adequate nutrition and hydration to ensure their wellbeing.

People were positive about the service and the staff who supported them. People told us they liked the staff and that they were treated with dignity and kindness.

Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work.

Medicines were managed safely. Staff had received relevant training and regular medicine audits were taking place.

There was an open and transparent culture and encouragement for people to provide feedback. The provider took account of complaints and comments to improve the service. A complaints book, policy and procedure were in place. People told us they were aware of how to make a complaint and were confident they could express any concerns and these would be addressed.

The home was well led by an experienced registered manager and the provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, seek people's views and make on-going improvements.

All the people we spoke with told us they were able to make their own decisions regarding their care. We found consent was both requested and recorded for people who used the service.

Although some medicine records were not always accurate or comprehensive, medicines were administered and stored appropriately.

All the people we spoke with had no concerns with any equipment they used. Although we saw an example of broken equipment, most equipment we saw was fit for purpose. Appropriate measures had been taken to ensure equipment was maintained.

The service had assessed the needs of people who used the service to ensure appropriate staffing levels were maintained. Staff were appropriately skilled and trained to meet people's needs.

Although some professional development was not comprehensive, the provider had regular professional development in place for staff.

Most of the people we spoke with were happy with the care provided and felt their needs were supported. Although there were times we found staffing levels were stretched to meet the needs of people who used the service, we found the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to ensure people were cared for safely.

Generally people were content with the rooms and the environment they lived in. We found the premises was fit for purpose and was well maintained.

Although we were informed of some concerns regarding staff welfare, we found staff were appropriately checked and went through a robust recruitment process before they were employed.

Most people who used the service told us that they were able to feedback their views on the service in a variety of ways and these views were taken into account. We found the provider undertook monitoring of the quality of the service to ensure it met peoples' needs.

Relatives were positive about the care their family member received. One relative said her mother was 'always clean' and a person living there said 'food is good'. Care records showed that people had access to healthcare professionals such as doctors, dentists, opticians and chiropodists.

Staff were aware how to protect people from abuse. Training was up to date and a member of staff told us they had a lot of training. We found that staff had been trained in safeguarding and training has now been booked in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty safeguards and challenging behaviour.

The service is taking appropriate action to minimise the risk of harm to people in the home by undertaking appropriate recruitment and staffing checks. Staff files for recent recruits confirmed the home's policy was being followed and that people should not start work until the CRB check had been received.