You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 10 January 2018

The inspection of Kenton House took place on the 5 December 2017. It was unannounced.

At the last inspection of the service on the 4 and 6 January 2017 we rated the service as ‘Requires Improvement’. The provider was in breach of three regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because we found deficiencies in the training and supervision that staff received, and a person was being deprived of their liberty for the purpose of receiving care without lawful authority. Also systems and processes were not established and operated effectively to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.

Following the inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do to improve the key questions Effective and Well-led to at least good. The provider sent us an action plan setting out the actions that they would take to meet the regulations. During this inspection we found appropriate systems were in place to ensure that staff received the training and support that they needed to carry out their role and responsibilities. Legal authorisations were in place where people needed to be deprived of their liberty for the purpose of receiving care or treatment, and systems to effectively monitor and improve the service provided to people were in place.

Kenton House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for eleven people. The home provides care and support for older people some of whom may have dementia. At the time of the inspection there were eleven people using the service.

There was a registered manager in post. The registered manager had managed the service from early 2017. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission [CQC] 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.

The registered manager was aware of their role and responsibilities, and since being in post had worked hard to develop and improve the service. They had promoted a positive culture in the service, which staff understood and supported. People’s preferences and choices were supported and they were encouraged to be involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions to do with the running and development of the service.

There were systems in place to keep people safe. Staff had an understanding of abuse and the safeguarding procedures that should be followed to report abuse .People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as possible and minimise the risk of them being harmed.

The staff recruitment procedures ensured that appropriate pre-employment checks were carried out to ensure only suitable staff worked at the service.

Fire safety checks and appropriate service tests had been carried out to make sure that the premises were safe.

Arrangements were in place to make sure people received the service they required from sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff.

People told us that staff were kind to them. We saw staff engaged with people in a friendly and considerate way.

People’s care plans included details about their individual needs and preferences. They contained important information about each person's background and interests which helped staff to get to know them. Where people had capacity to do so they had signed their own care plans. Where people lacked the capacity to make a specific decision, legal requirements had been met to ensure any decisions were made in the person’s best interests.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. When required, staff assisted people to receive the advices, treatment and care that they needed from healthcare and social care professionals. Staff had a good understanding of each person’s needs and abilities.

Ar

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 10 January 2018

The service was safe.

Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse.

Risks to people were identified and measures were in place to minimise and manage the risks to people�s safety.

Recruitment and selection arrangements made sure only suitable staff were employed by the service.

Sufficient numbers of skilled staff provided people with the care and support that they needed.

Medicines were managed and administered appropriately and safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 10 January 2018

The service was effective.

People were cared for by staff who received the training and support that they needed to enable them to carry out their responsibilities in meeting people's individual needs.

People were provided with a range of meals and refreshments that met their nutritional needs and dietary preferences.

People's consent was sought in line with legislation and guidance. Where people lacked the capacity to consent to decisions, legal requirements were met.

People were supported by the service to maintain good health.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 January 2018

The service was caring.

Staff provided people with the care and support they needed in a respectful manner.

Staff understood people's individual needs and respected their right to privacy.

People's relationships with those important to them were promoted and supported.

People were supported to express their views and to be involved in decisions about their care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 January 2018

The service was responsive.

People's individual care needs were understood by staff, who responded appropriately when people�s needs changed.

People were consulted about the service. Their feedback was listened to and respected.

People were supported to take part in a range of recreational activities. Steps were being taken to enable people to have more opportunities to access the community.

People knew how to make a complaint and were confident that any concerns would be addressed.

Well-led

Good

Updated 10 January 2018

The service was well led.

The management of the home was visible and inclusive.

People and staff spoke about the registered manager in a positive way. They recognised the improvements and developments that had been made to the service since the registered manager had been in post.

There were a range of processes in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.