Keneydon 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

Care records and daily notes were in the process of being update as they required further information to ensure they were meeting people’s needs in a consistent way. People were offered meaningful activities or engagement. A complaints procedure was available. Most people and relatives we spoke with knew how to make a complaint. People’s end of life decisions had been recorded.

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.

People and their relatives felt they were involved in the care and support. One person said, “Staff always ask if I have everything I need and ask if I am happy with the care I receive.” A relative told us, “Yes there is a care plan and the family were involved. We were listened to on what care was wanted. It has been regularly reviewed.”

Staff demonstrated they knew people well including their individual likes and dislikes and how they like to spend their day. The visit conducted by the local authority stated care plans were to be re-written in the first person and should provide more detailed information as there were only 3 sentences

People’s care plans varied in detail, some required more detail regarding the support people required and preferred. For example, 1 person’s records stated they required ‘full assistance’ with their personal care, with no further guidance on how to meet this person’s needs. The manager was in the process of updating the care plans following the visit from the local authority.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People and their relatives told us they felt comfortable speaking with staff or the manager. A relative told us, “[Manager] is very friendly and approachable. [They] have been very good listening to me if I have a question.” Another relative told us, “I’ve no reason for any recent complaints. If there is a problem, then I’d go to the office and speak to the manager.” A third relative told us, “I mentioned about [family members] eyes and hearing and the manager got them a new battery for the hearing aid. Then people came to check their eyes and they got some new glasses.”

Staff told us that people and relatives speak with them all the time. The manager has set up a WhatsApp group and said, “It is also a good place to raise any issues etc. It has also been discussed with families about starting up a monthly newsletter to keep communication up to date.”

The provider had a complaints policy, which was available for people to see on the noticeboard. Complaints are recorded and any action taken is documented. This demonstrated that the manager was responsive to concerns and used the information to improve the service. There was an agreement in place with families on the use of ‘WhatsApp’ to keep them up to date with what is happening within the service.

People were supported to access appropriate care and support services which best suited their needs. This included regular visits from the GP and other people as required. Relatives told us, “They have a good relationship set up with the GP practice.”

Staff supported people to access services when they needed to. A staff member told us, “We coordinate with healthcare professionals to schedule appointments, assist with transport, and accompany residents when needed.”

No concerns were raised with the local authority about people’s access to healthcare.

The provider had policies in place to ensure compliance with human rights requirements. This included consideration of the needs of people with different protected characteristics and how to make reasonable adjustments to ensure equity.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People were supported to plan for important changes, this provided them time to make informed decisions about their future. A relative said “[Family member] has Do Not Resuscitate [DNR] in place and the advocate was involved in it. The home knows about this.” Another relative told us, “Everything is in place. I discussed it with the G.P (end of life). There is a Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment [ReSPECT] Form in place. Now, if it’s not necessary to send them to hospital, unless they need medical interventions. They would prefer them to die at home.” The ReSPECT process creates a summary of personalised recommendations for a person’s clinical care in a future emergency in which they do not have capacity to make or express choices.

Staff we spoke with knew about people’s end of life wishes and that where possible people would remain in the service if that was their choice. One member of staff said, “We would like to support people to remain in the home and have their friends and family with them.”

The provider considered people's future plans and end of life care wishes as part of their initial assessment and monitored these through their monthly review process.