We carried out a review of the data available to us about Kerwin Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Kerwin Court, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
There was clear communication to visitors which were by appointment only. There were different arrangements in place, which allowed for social distancing whist meeting individual’s needs. The outdoor spaces were well used and there was a room set aside for visits with an external door. People were supported to keep in touch with their friends and families using video calls.
The layout of the service had allowed for isolation when needed. People who were shielding were supported to continue their rehabilitation. Staff spent time with people in meaningful activities, which included access to outside space.
The service was clean with personal protective stations at short intervals. A robust cleaning schedule was maintained. The layout of the service had been adjusted to give space between people when using communal areas. Laminated signs showed how to maintain social distance in the dining room and corridors.
The service did not have a registered manager in post on the day of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. Day to day charge of the service was carried out by a manager and we saw documentation that showed they were in the process of registering with the CQC.
At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
People remained safe. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and there were systems and process in place to keep people safe. There were robust systems in place to manage, administer, store and dispose of medicines. The provider ensured staff were suitable to work at the service before they started. We observed people’s needs being responded to in a timely manner. The service was clean and infection control procedures followed.
People’s needs and choices were assessed prior to people moving into the service, and they were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff continued to support people in the least restrictive way possible. People continued to enjoy a balanced diet and remained supported to access healthcare services as and when needed. Through the design and adaptation of the premises continued to assist people with their independence and rehabilitation.
Care continued to be personalised to meet the needs of individuals including their care, rehabilitation, social and wellbeing needs. The provider ensured there were systems in place to deal with concerns and complaints. End of life care was considered at the service if required.
We observed positive interactions between staff and people, staff knew people well and had built trusting relationships. People’s independence and rehabilitation continued to be promoted and developed, staff supported people in a dignified manner and people’s privacy continued to be respected.
The service remained well-led and robust and effective quality assurance systems and processes were in place to assess, monitor and drive improvements in the quality of care people received. People, staff and relatives remained engaged and involved in the service provided. The culture of the service continued to be positive and respected people’s equality, diversity and human rights.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People and their relatives told us people were safe living at Kerwin Court. One relative said of their family member “They are safe, I think it’s faultless, I can’t think of anything that could be done better”. People were safe as they were supported by staff that were trained in safeguarding adults at risk procedures and knew how to recognise signs of abuse. Medicines were managed and administered safely. Risks were thoroughly assessed and planned for. Accidents and incidents had been recorded and appropriate action had been taken and recorded by the registered manager.
We observed lunch, people had enough to eat and drink. They were given choices of food from a menu. Drinks were available throughout the day. One person told us “The foods fantastic.” The service monitored people’s weights and recorded how much they ate and drank to keep them healthy.
Staff were appropriately trained and supervised. Professional staff such as occupational therapist received clinical supervision and relevant training and rehabilitation support workers were supported to carry out training relevant to their roles and had received all essential training. Staff understood about people’s capacity to consent to care and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated legislation, which they put into practice.
People could choose when they wanted to get up and go to bed and were cared for by kind and compassionate staff, who knew them well. One person said “I love the place, they’re so caring and considerate”. People were involved in making decisions about their care and their privacy and dignity were respected.
Care plans provided detailed information about people and were personalised to reflect that person’s rehabilitation programme. The care plans were reviewed regularly to reflect the person’s change in need and the progress that they had made. Families were fully involved as part of these reviews. There was a range of interesting and social activities on offer at the home, which people could participate in if they chose. People met together daily at a community meeting to share ideas and feelings and plan for the day.
The management team promoted a positive culture where person centred practice was promoted and people’s rehabilitation was carefully planned and monitored. They had developed a motivated and committed team of staff. One member of staff said “The best thing here is the interdisciplinary approach with lots of joint working. I love working here. It’s so supportive I can’t say enough good things about it.” There was a range of audit tools and processes in place to monitor the care and support that was provided. This ensured the management team were assuring the quality of the care and support provided.
We found that people's care and treatment was based on an individual needs assessment and planned and delivered to ensure their safety and welfare. A person told us "they (staff) allow me to take some risks - but they keep me safe". We found that people's care was planned to reflect their preferences and diversity, a person said "I am respected". People were effectively supported by a multi-disciplinary team to achieve their rehabilitative goals.
Records showed that people's medicines were safely managed in the home. People were given information about their medicines and staff administering medication were competent to do so.
We found that the provider carried out the relevant checks when they employed staff and staff we spoke with had the relevant knowledge, qualifications, skills and experience to carry out their role effectively. We found that staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs.
We found that the provider had an effective system in place to deal with comments and complaints and this was monitored. People told us they were listened to and responded to by staff.
The provider told us people were pre-assessed prior to admission to the home. We reviewed the care records and found each person was pre assessed before they came to live at the home. We noted that areas included in the pre assessment were people's personal history, physical status, functional abilities, capacity to consent and risk management.
During the visit we observed staff engaged with people in a warm and supportive manner. We noted information was displayed in different forms to meet the needs of the people living in the home. For example we noted information was displayed using pictures and other visual aids.
We found people were protected from the risk of abuse as staff were trained in safeguarding. The staff we spoke to were knowledgeable about safeguarding issues and knew how to raise a safeguarding alert if there were concerns about people safety.
Staff told us they were supported to deliver care and treatment to people at an appropriate standard. We reviewed records and saw staff were regularly supervised and they were appraised annually.
The provider had a system in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service they delivered.