Kelstone Court Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this service since it registered under a new provider.

This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed when they first began to use the service and thereafter, every month or as and when their needs changed. Care plans were up to date and reflected people’s current needs.

Relatives of people using the service told us that the provider keep them informed if their family member’s needs changed.

Healthcare professionals told us “I have very regularly placed clients at Kelstone Court, and reviewed clients placed there and my experience for myself, as well as the feedback from others is consistently good.”
 

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People told us staff provided them with all the care and support they needed. People had individual care plans, providing staff with the information they required to meet people's needs.

People were supported through good care planning and staff ensured care plans reflected people’s needs. Best practice was followed when carrying out people’s needs assessments and this included involving people, and those that mattered to them.
 

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

People, and their relatives, told us staff worked with external health and social care professionals and helped them to attend any appointments with these professionals.

Managers and staff told us they worked closely with various external health and social care bodies and professionals and welcomed their views, advice, and best practice ideas. Health and social care partners said they had a good working relationship with the provider and worked with them to meet people’s needs.

Care records included details of any community health and social care professionals that were involved in people’s care, so they could be contacted if needed.
 

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People using the service told us they had access to health care professionals as required such as GP services.

Staff received training in how to meet and appropriately manage people’s health care needs and conditions, for example understanding diabetes awareness and mental health awareness. In addition, staff received emergency first aid training.

There were processes in place to ensure people's health care needs were met. For example, there was evidence of GP reviews and input from other healthcare professionals.
 

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The outcome of all the audits and monitoring checks and feedback the provider received from people and staff were routinely analysed to identify issues, learn lessons and develop action plans to improve the service they provided to people.

The quality of the service people received was routinely monitored by staff through a range of different methods including care plan reviews and audits, this ensured they were up to date and relevant.

Guidance for staff was on display in the home for staff to refer to if needed, for example ‘Malnutrition pathway for care home residents’ was on display during our visit.
 

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent.

We found some consent forms were signed by people’s relatives, even though people had been assessed as having the mental capacity to do so themselves. In another example, we found that although a person had been assessed as not having the mental capacity to consent for bed rails, the provider had not included their relative in a best interest decision for bed rails to be put in place.

We raised this with the registered manager at the time of the assessment who responded immediately and submitted evidence to us after the site visit that these changes had been made.
People told us staff asked for their consent when supporting them. We also observed this during the site visit. Managers and staff received Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training and were aware of their duties and responsibilities in relation to the MCA and DoLS. The provider submitted applications for DoLS authorisations to the relevant local authorities to lawfully deprive people of their liberty.