CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kadimah
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and individual risks were assessed. Medicines were given safely, although inspectors found that some fridge and freezer temperatures and food checks were not recorded as required.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received training, supervision and support, and worked with health professionals. Some staff had not completed all required e-learning, and one care plan contained incorrect information about a soft diet.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were caring, respectful and familiar with people's needs, communication methods and preferences. People were supported to make choices and maintain independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was person-centred and adapted to changing needs, with activities based on people's abilities and preferences. Inspectors noted that important instructions were not always passed effectively between shifts or managers.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager, regular audits and a continuous improvement plan. Staff and families generally spoke positively about management, although one relative said telephone messages were not always returned promptly.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but noted some food safety, training and communication records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 November 2018. One inspector observed care, spoke with staff, managers, a family member and external professionals, and checked records for three people.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines practice, respectful care, activities suited to people's needs and managers who monitored the service.
The report also identified some areas to improve. Food temperature checks were not always recorded, some staff had incomplete e-learning, one care plan contained incorrect information and instructions were not always passed clearly between shifts. CQC made a recommendation about food safety, but recorded no breaches.
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely. The home usually used staff who knew the people living there.
“There were enough staff on duty at all times to meet people's diverse, individual needs safely and effectively.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, understood their communication and supported their dignity, choices and independence.
“The committed and knowledgeable staff team provided care with kindness and respect.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were administered by trained staff whose competence was checked regularly. A previous medicines error had been dealt with and caused no harm.
“People continued to be given their medicines safely by staff who were appropriately trained to administer medicines and whose competency to do so was tested regularly.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home sought advice from health and social care professionals when people's needs changed.
“Management are proactive about requesting input from health professionals.” from the report
Activities matched to people
People had activities linked to their abilities, preferences, choices and wellbeing, including organised day care where appropriate.
“The service continued to provide people with an activities programme which related to their abilities, preferences, choices and well-being.” from the report
Food safety checks
needs fixingSome fridge and freezer temperatures were above recommended limits without recorded action. Inspectors also found no evidence of checks when frozen food arrived or when cooked food was served.
“some fridge/freezer temperatures were above the recommended limits without evidence of action taken.” from the report
Incomplete staff e-learning
needs fixingSome staff had not completed all required e-learning, mainly because of staff shortages. This was included in the home's improvement plan.
“some staff had not completed all required e.Learning largely due to staff shortages.” from the report
Care plan accuracy
needs fixingOne care plan incorrectly said that a person needed a soft diet. The manager agreed to review care plans for accuracy.
“one care plan referred to someone having a soft diet which was not correct.” from the report
Passing on instructions
needs fixingTwo health professionals said important instructions were not always passed effectively between shifts or to managers. The home had introduced measures to improve handovers.
“Sometimes instructions had not always been effectively passed between shifts or to the appropriate management staff.” from the report
- 01What action have you taken to make sure fridge and freezer temperatures, food deliveries and cooked food temperatures are checked and recorded?
- 02Have all staff now completed the required e-learning, and how do you check that training records are accurate?
- 03How do you check that care plans contain correct and up-to-date information about diets and health needs?
- 04What has changed in the handover process to make sure important instructions are passed between shifts and to managers?
- 05How do you make sure the staffing arrangements remain suitable for people with complex or changing health needs?
This was an unannounced inspection of the home covering all five key questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 January 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 Kadimah
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 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
78 live-in carers within about an hour of Wokingham
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 £1,260 a week. 71 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.