CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 218 Kingsway
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff had safeguarding training. There were enough staff, medicines checks had improved, but inspectors noted an odour and a shower that needed cleaning.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were understood and reviewed. Staff received training and supervision, supported people with nutrition and healthcare, and followed the principles of consent and least restrictive care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said they were happy with the care. Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, respect and gentle encouragement, while supporting their privacy and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reviewed regularly. People were supported to manage their mental health, maintain relationships, take part in activities and raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open culture and systems to monitor quality and safety. People and staff were involved in the running of the home and in planning improvements.
What inspectors found, February 2020
218 Kingsway was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with a minor cleaning concern.
Inspectors visited without notice on 24 January 2020. They spoke with all four people living in the home, the manager and two support staff. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, audits and meeting minutes.
The home provides personal care for up to five people with mental health needs. Inspectors found that people felt safe and received good support from staff who understood their needs well. People were encouraged to be independent and involved in decisions about their care.
All five areas were rated Good. Safe improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, while the other four ratings remained Good. Medicines concerns found at the last inspection had been addressed.
Staff understood people's needs
Staff knew people well and could recognise changes in their mental health. This helped the home seek appropriate support when needed.
“The registered manager and staff understood people's mental health needs very well and were aware of the subtle changes in behaviour” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff use kindness, humour and encouragement. People were involved in decisions about their care and their privacy was respected.
“We saw throughout the inspection that people were treated with respect.” from the report
Medicines improvements
The home had acted on medicines concerns from the previous inspection. New checks and recording changes were in place, and the stock checked was correct.
“Concerns in relation to medicines from our last inspection had been addressed.” from the report
Cleaning needed improvement
minorThe downstairs toilet and shower room had an odour, and the shower needed cleaning. The manager said cleaning schedules were being reviewed.
“We did note on arrival at the service that the downstairs toilet and shower room had some odour and the shower was in need of cleaning.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the cleaning schedule for the downstairs toilet and shower room?
- 02How are medicines stock levels and administration records checked now?
- 03How would you support my relative if their mental health began to deteriorate?
- 04How would my relative be involved in planning and reviewing their care?
- 05How could my relative maintain their independence, including going out or preparing food?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous overall rating was Good, published in August 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 February 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, August 2017
218 Kingsway was rated Good overall, but Safe Requires Improvement because medicine stock records were not accurate.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 13 July 2017. One inspector spoke with all five people living in the home, two care staff and the registered manager. They also checked care files, medicine records, training records and quality checks.
The home remained Good overall, as it was at the previous inspection in January 2015. Inspectors found kind and respectful care, staff who understood people's mental health needs, and support for independence, routines, healthcare and interests.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Stock levels for three of six checked medicines did not match the home's records. One medicine had a date on its packaging from about three years earlier, and it was unclear why this stock was still held. The other four areas were rated Good.
Strong relationships
The staff team was stable and knew people well. Inspectors saw warm, respectful conversations and staff spending time with people beyond care tasks.
“It was evident throughout our inspection that people felt comfortable with staff.” from the report
Support for independence
People were encouraged to manage daily tasks, follow their own routines and go out. Risk assessments aimed to keep people safe without unnecessary restrictions.
“Risk assessments were used to promote people's freedom and independence rather than place unnecessary restrictions.” from the report
Individual support
Care plans included people's histories, mental health needs, goals and preferred support. Staff helped people maintain interests, relationships and wellbeing.
“Staff at the home knew people well and understood their individual needs.” from the report
Good leadership and feedback
The home gathered people's views through surveys and meetings, and had regular checks on the service. People and staff were positive about the management.
“The home's monitoring systems included gathering feedback from people who used the service.” from the report
Medicine records and stock
seriousStock levels for three of six checked medicines were incorrect against the home's records. One medicine had a date written on its packaging from about three years earlier, and it was unclear why it was still being held.
“We found that stock levels of three out of six medicines we checked were incorrect according to the home's own records.” from the report
- 01How were the incorrect stock levels for three medicines investigated and corrected after the inspection?
- 02How do you now check medicine stock records against the medicines held?
- 03What happened to the medicine with a date from approximately three years earlier?
- 04How are medicine administration competencies checked for current staff?
- 05How do you make sure people remain independent while staff still monitor their safety?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 August 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of 218 Kingsway
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 November 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Bristol, City of
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,300 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She became a good friend to my mother in law, chatting with her, dancing with her, knitting with her and the list goes on”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.