Kitnocks House

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 and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care and support was person-centred. Care was coordinated to maximise independence and planned to incorporate people’s choices and preferences. The registered manager told us, “We get to know about people’s culture and what their expectation is. This helps us to support people in a person-centred way.” Care plans were person centred and we observed person centred care throughout the inspection.

The provider had a schedule of varied activities which people could choose to take part in. One person told us they enjoyed painting and drawing.

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.

People’s choice was evidenced throughout the inspection. People and their relatives told us, and documents demonstrated, people had access to appropriate healthcare when required, and staff fully engaged with the process.

The provider worked well with multidisciplinary teams to ensure the best outcomes for people, for example, older people’s mental health and community mental health teams to ensure seamless holistic care for people with complex needs.

Staff had completed training and understood the Equalities Act. The registered manager told us how they collaborated with healthcare professionals to ensure care was joined up.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Where required people had access to communication aids such as picture menu’s, large print and easy read documents.

The provider 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 knew people well and supported them to ensure they were able to express their needs and wishes. People’s relatives told us if they had a complaint, they would raise it with the nurses and felt sure it would be dealt with appropriately. A relative told us, “No complaints from me, and I would know how to raise one.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People’s care plans noted their needs and any adjustments required to ensure they had equal access to the services provided. The home was well-equipped with any equipment people required to support the safe delivery of their care. The garden was accessible and raised planters were being made for use by people who used wheelchairs.

However, the environment was not dementia‑friendly. Corridors and communal areas had white walls and white doors, which did not provide the visual contrast needed to help people with dementia recognise key areas or navigate safely. Memory boxes were limited, and several rooms had no personalised cues to support orientation or reminiscence. This meant people were at increased risk of disorientation and required more staff support to move around the home independently. We spoke with the registered manager about this who told us further consideration was being given to developing a dementia friendly environment as part of their ongoing refurbishment.

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.

Staff treated people as individuals and adjusted care and support to meet individuals’ needs and preferences. The registered manager and staff gave us examples of how people’s outcomes had been improved since living at the service. One relative told us, “At the moment staff are working with me because when I leave, my relative gets really upset.”

People were 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.

People had end of life plans and were asked how they wished to be cared for at the end of their life. Relatives had also been involved in this process. Staff told us how they supported people at the end of life and we received positive feedback from a relative about how their loved one is supported by staff with their palliative care.

The registered manager told us they were developing a remembrance garden.