Kimwick Care Home

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 changed to Requires Improvement.

Requires improvement: This meant people’s needs were not always met.

People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint; however, complaints were not responded to effectively. Processes were in place to enable people to provide feedback on their care. However, these were not implemented in a person-centred way.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

People and their relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint. However, when concerns were raised, they were not responded to and insufficient action was taken.

Staff told us they knew how to respond to concerns and complaints and would report all concerns to the manager. However, people’s relatives told us in practice they received no feedback when they raised concerns and improvements were not made quickly enough.

During the assessment people’s relatives described how they often raised concerns with staff. However, there was no log of complaints available at the time of assessment. This meant the provider was unable to analyse concerns and complaints to enable themes and trends to be identified and lessons learned to be shared with staff.

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

Staff and leaders did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this.

People’s relatives told us they had not been asked to provide any feedback on the service their family member received. When they had provided feedback due to their concerns with the service, this had not been acted on. For example. feedback in relation to their concerns with the environment.

People’s relatives told us staff did not always communicate with people in a way that fully enabled them to share their views about their experiences. One person’s relative described how staff did not pick up on the person’s body language when communicating.

Staff were aware of the importance of listening to people but lacked the knowledge and skills to do this effectively.

Processes were in place to enable people to provide feedback on their care. However, these were not always implemented effectively. For example, the ‘Residents Survey’ was not in an easy read format. We saw an example of a survey that had been completed by a person whose care plan identified complex communication needs. Staff had completed the form on behalf of the person and all sections were rated as ‘outstanding’ or ‘good’. The survey referred to the option to submit anonymously, but this would not be possible having been completed with staff. There was no evidence how the person’s communication needs had been supported to enable them to share their feedback in a way that met their needs.

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