CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Folkestone Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safer medicines systems and clear guidance for managing health risks. Accidents and incidents were reviewed so action could be taken.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and regular supervision. People received support with food, healthcare, communication and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives said staff were kind and respectful. Inspectors saw staff supporting privacy, dignity, independence and personal choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and updated when people's needs changed. People were supported with activities, relationships, communication and end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open and positive culture, with improved audits and action plans. People, relatives and staff could give feedback and suggest changes.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Folkestone Care Centre was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with clear improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 6 and 10 July 2022. Two inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safer medicines systems, improved risk assessments, kind care and personalised support. The home was clean and had improved its dementia-friendly signs and information.
The previous inspection rated the home Requires Improvement and found breaches of regulations. Inspectors said the provider had made enough improvements and was no longer in breach. One minor issue was identified during this inspection because complaints were not yet being analysed for trends, but a process was put in place before the inspection ended.
Safer medicines and risk planning
Medicines systems and risk assessments had improved since the previous inspection. Staff had clear guidance about conditions such as diabetes and catheter care.
“At this inspection we found clear guidance in place to inform staff how best to support people with healthcare conditions including catheter care and diabetes.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness and their privacy and dignity were respected. Staff encouraged people to remain as independent as possible.
“We observed staff change their approach person to person. Staff showed kindness and fondness towards the people they were supporting.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's individual needs, preferences and communication requirements. Staff worked with Dementia UK and healthcare professionals to improve support.
“Care plans were personalised to meet each individual's needs.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in activities and spend time with relatives and loved ones. The report describes a range of activities taking place.
“People were supported to take part in activities to avoid social isolation.” from the report
Improved management checks
The home introduced an electronic audit system and used action plans to track improvements. People, relatives and staff were able to give feedback.
“A new electronic audit system had been implemented which staff said made it easier to carry out audits and identify areas for improvement.” from the report
Complaint trends were not yet analysed
minorThe home had investigated complaints within the required timescales, but it did not initially have a system to look for recurring themes. A process was put in place before the inspection ended.
“There was no system in place to analyse complaints for trends.” from the report
- 01How do you check that the improved medicines system continues to record and administer medicines safely?
- 02How will you update my relative's risk assessments and care plan when their needs change?
- 03What dementia-friendly support, communication aids and activities would be available for my relative?
- 04How do you monitor complaints now that a process for identifying trends has been introduced?
- 05How will you involve our family in decisions, care reviews and feedback about the service?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 September 2022 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, October 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but risks, medicines, records and oversight were not always managed safely.
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home. It was unannounced and took place on 28 August 2019. Two inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
People generally said they felt safe and happy. Staff were kind, knew people well and supported their privacy, choices, food, activities and healthcare. There were enough staff, and people said call bells were answered promptly.
However, important risks were not always assessed or explained to staff. Medicines were not always stored or given correctly. Care plans and other records were not consistently up to date. The environment did not support people living with dementia well, and quality checks had missed these problems.
The overall rating and four of the five question ratings were Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good. The home breached regulations about safe care and treatment, premises and equipment, and good governance. CQC required an action plan and said it would monitor the home and inspect again.
Kind and respectful care
Staff promoted privacy, dignity and independence. They knew how to reassure people and supported personal routines and choices.
“People were treated with respect.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were completed and agency staff were used where needed.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Food and drink
People had choices, snacks and drinks, and their dietary preferences were catered for. Staff encouraged people to eat and drink.
“People were supported to eat a balanced diet. People's dietary preferences were met.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in activities they enjoyed, including one-to-one support. Relatives were welcomed and people were supported to maintain relationships.
“People were supported to maintain relationships with people who were important to them.” from the report
Risk assessments and guidance
seriousStaff did not always have clear guidance about risks such as catheter infections, diabetes, falls and skin damage. This could increase the risk of harm.
“Potential risks to people's health and welfare had not been consistently assessed and there was not always guidance to mitigate the risk.” from the report
Medicine safety
seriousSome medicines were stored in the wrong place and nurses did not follow the required two-person administration process.
“Nurses had not followed the correct administration process of having two people present when the medicines were given.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
seriousThe dementia community had no pictorial signs and bedroom doors looked alike. Some people struggled to find their way around, and other people entered the wrong rooms.
“There were no pictorial signs for communal rooms so people could find their way around the unit.” from the report
Care plans and records
seriousCare plans did not always reflect current needs, choices or preferences. Fluid targets had not been reviewed even when records showed people did not reach them.
“The plans did not always reflect the care being given or changed when people's needs had changed.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits and provider spot checks had not found the problems identified by inspectors. Some records were inaccurate or out of date, and spot checks were not recorded.
“These had not been effective at identifying the shortfalls found at this inspection including the lack of guidance for staff to mitigate risk.” from the report
Accessible information
needs fixingImportant information, including the complaints policy and care plans, was not available in formats such as pictures or easy read. Inspectors recommended that the provider improve this.
“People were not given information in ways they could understand.” from the report
- 01What has been changed to make risk assessments and staff guidance clear for catheters, diabetes, falls and skin damage?
- 02How are medicines with special storage and administration rules now stored, checked and given?
- 03What improvements have been made to signs, bedroom doors and navigation for people living with dementia?
- 04How do you make sure care plans are updated promptly when people's needs, choices or preferences change?
- 05What evidence can you show that audits and provider checks now identify problems and lead to completed improvements?
This was an unannounced planned first inspection of the care home, covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 October 2019 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 Folkestone Care Centre
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 September 2018.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.