Keate House Residential 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 prior to their admission into the service, to help ensure people’s needs could be met in full.

Any expected outcomes were identified, and care and support were regularly reviewed to help ensure it was relevant to people’s current needs.

Where people were unable to fully participate in decisions about their care, the provider involved people’s significant others where appropriate. One relative told us, “I feel fully involved and kept up to date, the communication in the home is very good.”

Although we were assured the provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them, people’s care records did not always best evidence this.

Although we were assured people received the care and support they required, some people’s daily care records did not contain sufficient detail. For one person who was on a modified diet, their food intake had been recorded by staff as ‘eaten well’ and ‘food and fluid intake good.’ Therefore, it was not always possible to know from the records what the person had consumed and whether this had been provided to the person in the right consistency.

We spoke to the registered manager about this who confirmed additional training and support would be provided for staff, to help improve the quality and accuracy of records.

People had access to a wide variety of nutritional food and drink and had choice over what they wanted to eat. Food was locally sourced and home cooked. People told us they enjoyed the food. A relative confirmed, “Good quality food and drinks here and it’s all homemade.”

Each of the 3 units contained a self-contained kitchen for the preparation of simple meals, snacks and drinks. Two sittings were offered for both lunch and tea, which afforded people greater flexibility in what time they wanted to eat and provided more time for staff to spend with people when providing assistance with feeding.

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.

The registered manager explained the home benefitted from good links with the community health care team. The GP and Enhanced home care team visited weekly. The provider had created a dedicated treatment room to enable people to engage with visiting health professionals in a private and dignified space.Such visits helped to prevent people from unnecessary and potentially stressful hospital admissions, as less serious ailments could be treated within the home.

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.

The provider worked collaboratively across services to better understand and meet people’s needs. The provider used an electronic care recording system, so information could be shared quickly and easily with other external health care professionals.

Appropriate referrals to other relevant professionals to help people achieve better outcomes were made in a timely way. We saw examples of referrals being made to SALT (Speech and Language Therapy) team where the provider had recognised people requiring modifications to their diet. The provider also worked in partnership with district nurses and the GP.

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.

Care and support were regularly reviewed and updated to ensure people’s needs were met. Written reviews of care were documented in people’s care and support plans. Any changes in care and support were clearly rationalised.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff empowered people to make decisions about their care, so their human and legal rights were upheld. People told us their rights were respected.

The provider assessed whether people had capacity to make decisions and involved relevant professions when needed. Where people did not have capacity, staff upheld their rights in the least restrictive way possible and referred people for professional assessment at the earliest opportunity.

The deputy manager explained that whether it was the use of sensor mats or the implementation of covert medicines, the least restrictive option for people was always utilised.

During our assessment, we observed staff asking and explaining to people prior to any care intervention. Comments from relatives included, “They [Staff] talk to my family member before doing anything” and “They [Staff] explain what needs doing.”