Keneydon House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People told us they felt safe. Staff had completed safeguarding training, policies and procedures were available and staff we spoke with told us how they would report to the manager if they had any concerns around safeguarding. However, we found that 2 incidents had not been reported to safeguarding. Some risks that had been identified lacked detailed information on how to reduce and manage the risk. Some areas of the home were in need of redecoration. Recruitment processes needed to be improved to ensure all necessary information had been reviewed before a decision to employ was made.

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 that staff knew what they were doing. One person told us they were asked by staff about their care and if they would like to make any changes to their care.

Staff told us they received the required training they needed to support people. There was an open culture where staff were able to review the risks. Staff had a daily handover meeting where any concerns about people were raised and any changes to peoples care needs were discussed.

Daily handover meetings took place and ensured staff were aware of any changes to people needs. We saw evidence that the manager supported staff to embed lessons learned and best practice through meetings and their internal communication processes.

People told us they were supported to see the doctor when required. A family member told us, “[Family member] had a chest infection, went to hospital and was well looked after when they came back to the service. They are now back to normal”. Another family member stated, “[Family member] has severe arthritis and had been moved downstairs a week ago and she is very happy.”

Staff in the service worked with people and external agencies to maintain safety. Staff were able to provide examples of when people had been referred for further medical treatment. The manager told us of the recent referral to the dietitian and to support a person and to improve their well-being.

There were processes in place to ensure that people’s safety and these were aligned to ensure other key partners were involved in peoples care journeys. Timely and appropriate referrals were made for specialist support including the GP and chiropody services. We identified action had been taken to follow up with a person who had been displaying distressed behaviours and a referral had been submitted to the older persons team to support the person. Although we noted that a health professional had requested a routine blood test for 1 person, this had not been followed up for 4 weeks. The manager agreed to follow this up following our first visit to the service. At our second visit the blood test had been undertaken and results were good.

People told us they felt safe. A family member told us, “Yes, safety is no problem.” Another family member said, “I believe it is safe. They have been here for 7 years. They had been having falls, so they were moved to a different room and this led to less falls."

Most staff we spoke with told us that if they had concerns about somebody’s safety they would speak with the manager. Although not all of them were aware of the agencies outside of the workplace where they could go to for support or if they had any concerns. Staff were aware of whistleblowing, although they talked about raising concerns internally.

People were safe and risk assessments had identified measures needed to ensure people’s safety. For example, a gate had been placed at the bottom of the stairs to prevent people from accessing the stairs without support. We observed positive interactions between staff and people as they were supported to use equipment to move safely around the home.

A safeguarding policy was in place and was accessible to people, staff and visitors. Although it was identified that additional information is shared with staff about the external agencies, they could report any safeguarding issues directly to the manager. Although we noted that there had been 2 safeguarding incidents that had not been reported to the local authority, the manager had made sure people were safe.

Family members told us they were informed when accidents happened. A family member told us, “[Family member] has a walking frame and a stick to walk about with. I believe a risk assessment was done. In the beginning I was asked (about risks) when talking about their needs.”

Staff were able to tell us about some of the risk to people and how they managed it with using equipment such as sensor mats.

Staff understood the person’s non-verbal communication and knew what to say to calm them. We observed staff sensitively supporting people, this included providing reassurance to a person when they were showing signs of distress. Staff were observed using equipment safely.

Not all risk assessments contained sufficient information to provide full guidance to staff about the required actions to mitigate potential risks. The local authority inspection highlighted that some records required more detail to ensure that staff had all the information to manage people risks. The manager provided us with reassurance that they would review all peoples risk assessments and ensure they provided more detailed information to mitigate the risks as far as possible.

Peoples feedback did not highlight any concerns about the environment. A family member commented, “They put an alarm mat by [family members] bed. No hoist is needed. They have a four-wheel walker. There is a stairlift and they use it. There’s always staff with them on the stairlift. As far as I know the stairlifts are always working.”

Our observations showed that some areas of the service were in need of redecoration. Decluttering of the dining area would provide a better experience for people to enjoy. However, the service was clean with no malodours detected. The local authority highlighted, ‘There are some areas of wear and tear due to the age of the building.’ and moving and handling equipment showed their servicing was completed in December 2023. Equipment is tested and well maintained. Residents with mobility issues are placed on the ground floor, residents with good mobility placed on the first floor, however there are stair lifts in place and well maintained.

The environment was kept safe by regular checks and maintenance, which were monitored by the manager and the provider. Regular fire safety checks and evacuation tests were carried out. We received an improvement plan following our visit to the service, which showed some decoration had been scheduled to improve the service.

People and their relatives felt there were enough staff available. A family member told us, “My, [family member] has continence needs and the carers come straightaway. They also attend quickly to other residents when I’ve been on visits to the home”. Another family member said, “[Family member] can get the carers fairly quickly if they need them”.

All staff we spoke with felt there were enough staff to meet people’s needs, although most of them said, ‘It would always be nice to have more to do more’. All staff we spoke with told us they had a criminal record check and reference prior to starting their job.

Our observations confirmed there were enough staff to keep people safe. The local authority commented that staff had completed their moving and handling training in line with the county council training guide. Although as part of the action plan moving forward they need to ensure staff have their competency checked and recorded on the training matrix.

Processes and systems were in place to monitor staff and recruitment. However, we did identify 1 member of staff whose records were incomplete to demonstrate that all information was recorded where a decision to employ was not fully recorded to ensure people’s safety. The manager had followed this up by our second visit. We also noted that 1 person’s criminal records check showed the name was incorrect. This was due to a managerial oversight issue and was rectified following our feedback.

People told us they were satisfied with the cleanliness. A family member told us, “The home is always clean and tidy”.

Staff told us and we saw that there was sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) available to help them work safely. We observed staff wearing PPE and regularly washing and/or sanitising their hands during our visit. As a couple of people had been identified with COVID 19 additional measures were in place to protect everyone. This included isolating people in their rooms where possible and having additional disposal bins near people's rooms to prevent PPE being carried throughout the service.

Polices and procedures were in place for infection and prevention control. Personal protective equipment, such as aprons and gloves, was readily available throughout the home to prevent the risk of infection for staff and people.

No one raised any issues with the medication. A family member told us, “[Family member] get their medicines on time from the carers and I’m not aware of anything being missed. Staff keep a daily record of what’s been given”. Another family member told us, “Staff get his regular medicines from the GP and I provide some of the specialist medication from the hospital. Staff give them all the medication and definitely keep records. The medicines are locked in a cupboard”.

Staff were able to explain how they supported people with their medication and how they escalated any concerns. This included support from other professionals.

Systems and processes were in place to promote safe medicine management. Regular audits were undertaken, and action taken to address any concerns. Medicines were managed safely. We found people's medicines were received, stored and administered safely and their medicine administration records (MAR) were completed. Staff told us they had received medicines training and their competency to safely administer medicines was regularly re-assessed.