Kenton Hall Nursing 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

At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to good. This meant people's outcomes were consistently good, and people's feedback confirmed this. People’s needs were assessed and met in a person-centred way. Care records were detailed and clinical assessments were undertaken and updated regularly. Best practice guidance was followed when treatments and care were given. Staff worked well as a team internally and with external partners. Decisions about care were made in line with the mental capacity act.

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.

People told us their care needs had been assessed and they were involved in care planning. People said staff consulted with them knew their care and support needs. One relative said, “Once a full assessment was done (in which the manager determined whether they could need the person’s needs) [the manager] was able to taken the person on comfortably and provide the support he needed.”

Staff told us there were effective systems in place to assess and monitor people’s needs. This included handover meetings at the start of each shift.

Robust systems were in place to ensure people's care and support needs were met.

People told us they were asked about their care and support requirements. When asked about their care plan a person commented, “Yes it’s reviewed often.” A relative said, “We had a (care plan) review a few weeks ago.” Another relative said, “[Staff] ask [person] what he wants to eat.”

People’s care was based around what is important to them and according to their preferences. Permanent staff knew people’s care and support needs, including their dietary preferences and nutritional needs.

Care records reflected people's care and support needs. The service made timely and appropriate referrals for specialist support from other professionals such as the GP and the speech and language team (SALT). Care plans contained information about people’s nutritional needs and if a person’s diet was modified. Contemporaneous records were not always completed as they should be due to the lack of handheld devices available.

People and relatives felt that staff worked well as a team.

Most staff felt they worked well with each other, with the management team and external partners.

Positive feedback was received from professionals who were involved with the service. A professional commented, “There is a good team ethic within the care home, it comes across as a pleasant environment to live in and to work in, staff are always polite and friendly and residents appear to be well cared for.”

Processes were in place to share information across the service. Regular staff meetings were held. Information shared by visit professionals was disseminated to staff.

People told us they were supported to access health care. Lots of people and relatives commented positively on the availability of the GP.

Staff supported people appropriately. Staff monitored people closely, such as after a fall, and took action when the support of other medical professionals was needed.

People’s health care needs were being met. People had access to health professionals whenever they were needed. The GP conducted a weekly ward round.

People told us the care they received was good. People and relatives said staff monitored them appropriately. One relative said, “[Staff] have discussed new antibiotics with [person], the nurses monitor his blood and give him insulin.”

Staff were aware of people’s needed, and who required close monitoring. We observed staff supporting people on a particularly warm day. Staff were closely checking people’s fluid intake and supporting those at risk of dehydration to drink plenty.

Systems were in place to monitor and improve outcomes. Sometimes monitoring checks and care plan information was inconsistent. The manager took action to rectify any issues we identified.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People told us they were asked for their choices and staff respected their decisions. One person said, “If I want to do anything I do, I’ve been out to a fete to another home they had a singer on.” A relative said, “When [staff] reposition [person], it takes two [staff], they always tell her what they are doing.”

Staff knew how to support people in a way which respected their decisions and supported them to make choices. The manager and staff were aware of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and the need to ask for consent.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff supported people in least restrictive ways. Records around people’s capacity contained all relevant information and were completed in line with national guidance.