Kenrick Centre Also known as Delroy Bonnitto

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 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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. That they decided in partnership with people, how to respond to relevant changes in people’s needs.

The provider reviewed changes in people’s needs according to organisational policy or when incidents happened. Reviews were robust and included advice to staff on how to encourage positive change. We saw an example whereby a person wanted to maintain motor skills. They were put in touch with a knitting group and told us this helped immensely. The registered manager ensured staff respected the peoples wishes.

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 with healthcare professionals to mitigate risk to people. We saw that medical and other health related appointments were kept up to date and records of any concerns. The service worked with the nurse practitioner to ensure peoples care needs were reviewed. An example would be when a person’s medication changed, the risk review included any possible side effects.

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

One person told us that the staff read out written documents such as letters or care plans to them as they could not read. The registered manager told us that they had documents in different formats such as large print or different languages if that was required.

The registered manager made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. Staff discussed matters that impacted people within service meetings. People and staff were able to collaborate on issues that were important to people.

For example people requested different types of food due to the change of weather and staff were very receptive of this.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff understood it was important to involve people in all aspects of the service. One staff member said, “This is people’s home. We are just here to make sure that they have the support they need and to keep them safe. I try not to ‘crowd’ people and let them have control of what they want to do.”

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to the partner organisations such as community healthcare teams, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach in how they cared for people. One staff member said, “You must recognise different ethnicities and cultures”. The registered manager told us that they actively recruited people with protected characteristics to better reflect the people living at the home. We saw staff communicate with people in a language of their choice and this helped people understand plans and have a better-informed position on the care they received.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Not all people were encouraged to take part in discussions about moving on. there was not always end-of-life discussions or plans documented in people’s care records. This meant that people and their families may not have wishes taken into account when the need arose. The registered manager told us that they would incorporate future planning into care planning. There were no people living at the home who were on end of life pathways or considered at the natural end of their life.