CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kemps Place
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from harm as far as practicable. There were enough staff, recruitment checks were properly completed and medicines were managed safely, although an audit found nine omissions on medicines administration records.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and competent, understood consent and supported people with their health and wellbeing. The registered manager had identified that some formal staff supervision was overdue.
- Caring?
- Good
- People spoke positively about staff and had good relationships with them. Staff involved people in decisions and respected their privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support reflected people's needs, preferences, beliefs, hobbies and goals. People said staff listened to concerns, although two people raised concerns that they felt had not been fully addressed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Quality and safety checks identified areas for improvement and the management team took action. People and staff said they felt able to express their views and that management listened.
What inspectors found, November 2017
Kemps Place was rated Good in all areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised support, with some issues to monitor.
Inspectors visited on 26 September 2017 without announcing the visit. They spoke with five people, staff, the registered manager and a visiting health professional. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff recruitment records, quality checks and safety checks.
The home supported younger people with their mental health. It could accommodate 31 people, and 26 people were living there in self-contained flats. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, trained staff and care that respected people's choices, privacy, dignity and independence.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors noted some matters for follow-up, including restricted access through a fire exit, nine medicines-record omissions, overdue staff supervision and requests for more frequent residents' meetings.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff responded promptly to requests and the home used bank staff so people were supported by staff who knew them.
“There were enough staff to support people safely.” from the report
Medicines support
Staff supported people to take medicines safely while allowing people to manage parts of this themselves where it was agreed to be safe. Staff also explored alternatives before giving occasional medicines for anxiety or pain.
“Staff supported people to manage their medicines safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People spoke highly of the staff team. Staff understood people's preferences and goals and promoted privacy, dignity and independence.
“People had developed positive relationships with the staff team and valued the caring attitude staff showed towards them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered mental and physical health, emotional needs, social inclusion, finances and independence. Staff supported people with activities, work, shopping, appointments and holidays.
“People were supported in a way that took into account their individual needs, preferences and beliefs, as well as their hobbies and interests.” from the report
Active management
The management team used checks on care records, medicines, health and safety, incidents and accidents. They acted when checks identified improvements were needed.
“Systems for monitoring the quality and safety of the service were effective in identifying where improvements could be made and the management team took action to respond to findings.” from the report
Fire exit access
seriousParking arrangements partly restricted a fire exit through double doors. Inspectors said people might not be able to leave quickly in an emergency and discussed reviewing this with the registered manager and fire service.
“However, we did note that parking arrangements partially restricted a fire exit through double doors.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingAn audit found nine omissions on medicines administration records over two weeks. Management investigated whether these were recording errors or missed medicines and provided extra training where needed.
“We noted that an audit had identified nine omissions on MAR charts during a two-week period.” from the report
Overdue supervision
needs fixingThe registered manager had identified a delay in formal supervision for discussing staff performance and development. There was a plan to catch up on overdue sessions.
“The registered manager recognised a slippage in formal supervision to discuss staff performance and development needs.” from the report
Residents' meetings
minorOne person wanted residents' meetings to happen more often than every three months or so. Inspectors asked management to consider whether other people would welcome this.
“One person commented to us that they would like to see these happen more often, rather than once every three months or so.” from the report
Concerns not fully resolved
needs fixingTwo people told inspectors that concerns they had raised did not feel fully addressed. Management agreed to explore these matters further with them.
“Two people did raise a concern with us that they did not feel had been fully addressed, and which they agreed we could discuss with the registered manager and owner.” from the report
- 01What action was taken about the parking that restricted the fire exit, and has the fire service reviewed the arrangement?
- 02What caused the nine omissions on medicines administration records, and how do you now check that medicines are recorded correctly?
- 03Are all staff now receiving formal supervision on time, including discussions about performance and development?
- 04How often are residents' meetings held now, and how are people's views collected between meetings?
- 05What happened after the two concerns that people felt had not been fully addressed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and was the first inspection after the provider changed from a partnership to a limited company. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 November 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 Kemps Place
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- November 2017Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 September 2016.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.