Kenton Manor

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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.

The provider assessed people’s needs before they moved into the service to ensure their individual requirements could be met. Care plans were developed in partnership with people and their loved ones, and reflected their personal preferences, choices and how they wished to receive care and support. This ensured that care was tailored to meet each individual’s needs from the outset.

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 had access to specialist diets where required, such as fortified meals or texture-modified diets. Where individuals had specific dietary needs, these were clearly recorded in their care plans to ensure staff were aware of the support required. Catering staff had access to up-to-date information regarding people's dietary requirements, allergies, and personal preferences, including likes and dislikes. People were offered a choice of meals, and alternatives were available for those who did not wish to have the main menu options. This supported people to maintain a balanced diet that met both their nutritional needs and personal preferences.

At lunchtime, we observed people were supported in a way that respected their individual preferences. Some chose to eat in the dining room, while others preferred to have their meals in their own rooms. To support decision-making, people were shown plated meal options to help them choose what they wanted to eat. There were also picture menus available.

We observed staff providing support in a calm and unhurried manner to those individuals who required assistance to eat their meals. However, we observed lunchtime on the ground and first floors. The environment was busy and, at times, felt disorganised. Some people waited a significant amount of time for their meals, and we noted that not all individuals seated at the same table were served at the same time. On both the ground and second floors, staff appeared stretched, and there were missed opportunities to prompt or support people with their meals in a timely or consistent manner. This impacted the overall mealtime experience and, in some cases, may have affected people’s ability to eat well or enjoy their food. We have raised this with the registered manager who agreed to carry out observations of mealtimes and discuss our findings with staff.

People mostly spoke positively about the food. One person said, “The food is lovely and I make choices about what I eat.”

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.

Information was shared with health and social care professionals to support continuity of care. Staff and management worked collaboratively with external agencies to plan and deliver joined-up care and support that met people’s individual needs. A health professional told us, “I’ve never had any issues when I’ve visited Kenton Manor, the staff are always very helpful and happy to chat so that I can get the information I need. I see [Deputy manager] quite a lot and she knows the clients well and is really friendly.” This partnership approach supported positive outcomes for people and ensured that care remained coordinated and consistent.

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 had access to a range of health and social care professionals to support their physical and emotional wellbeing. Care records confirmed that individuals were seen by professionals such as GPs, district nurses, dentists, and other relevant services when needed. People were supported to attend appointments, and referrals were made promptly to ensure timely intervention and continuity of care. A staff member told us, “Staff in Kenton Manor know how residents behave and appear on a regular basis, so they escalate changes noted. Nurses and seniors do physiological monitoring and contact the members of the multidisciplinary team to escalate care as needed.”

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.

Staff involved people in planning their care and support to ensure it reflected their preferences and needs. Care plans were regularly reviewed and updated to capture any changes in people’s care needs. Daily records were maintained to monitor people’s wellbeing consistently. People had timely access to healthcare services to support both their emotional and physical health, promoting overall wellbeing.

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

People were supported to have maximum choice and control over their daily lives. Staff promoted independence by supporting people in the least restrictive way possible, acting in their best interests. The service had clear policies and systems that underpinned this approach. Mental capacity assessments were completed appropriately, and decisions were made in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, ensuring that people’s rights and dignity were upheld.