CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Kendal Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, outbreak management, testing, PPE, visiting arrangements and staffing measures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Targeted inspection during a COVID-19 outbreak; infection-control measures were found reassuring, but the service was not rated.
Inspectors visited the home on 18 January 2022. It was a targeted inspection during a COVID-19 outbreak. They looked at infection prevention and control and asked about staffing pressures.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing the outbreak, including isolation, testing, personal protective equipment, visiting and cleaning arrangements. They also found that vaccination checks were being carried out for staff and visiting professionals.
The home had enough staff at the time, including agency staff to support the permanent team. This was not a full inspection of the quality of care. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Outbreak management
The home followed guidance for people who had tested positive for COVID-19 and supported them to isolate in their rooms.
“The registered manager had followed government guidance around supporting people who had tested positive for COVID-19 to isolate in their rooms.” from the report
Visitor safety
Visitors had to take a negative lateral flow test and were supported to use suitable protective equipment.
“The provider had very robust systems to prevent visitors from catching or spreading infection.” from the report
Personal protective equipment
The home had suitable PPE and had followed infection-control advice about using face visors.
“The provider had ensured appropriate PPE was available.” from the report
Staffing cover
Inspectors were told there were enough staff, with agency workers used to supplement the permanent team.
“The provider had ensured there were enough staff to care for people.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What is the current staffing level, and how often are agency staff being used?
- 02How are visitors currently tested and supported to use PPE?
- 03How would you manage a new COVID-19 outbreak, including isolation and visiting?
- 04How do you check that staff and visiting professionals meet the current vaccination or exemption requirements?
- 05Can we see the home's fuller inspection history and ratings for caring, effective, responsive and well-led care?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and staffing pressures during a COVID-19 outbreak; it did not rate the other key questions or the service overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 January 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, August 2021
Kendal Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring care, but identified shortfalls in PPE use and the management of some medicines.
This was a focused inspection on 26 May and 24 June 2021. It was prompted partly by concerns about medicines and a specific incident, but the circumstances of that incident were not examined. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led. The other ratings came from the previous comprehensive inspection.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Good for Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, medicines were generally managed safely and there were systems to learn from incidents. Staff recruitment checks were thorough and inspectors saw people receiving the care they needed.
There were some issues to address. Inspectors saw two occasions when PPE was not used properly, and one emergency medicine was not easily accessible or understood by all staff. Some care records were not accurate on the first visit, but these were corrected by the second visit. The overall rating remained Good.
Protection from abuse
The home had systems to identify and report abuse. Staff had been trained and people and relatives said they felt safe.
“People were safe and protected from the risk of abuse. The provider had robust systems to protect people from abuse.” from the report
Staff checks
The home carried out thorough checks before employing new staff, including references and checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service.
“The provider carried out robust checks on all new staff before they were employed in the home.” from the report
Person-centred care
Inspectors found that staff knew people well and involved people and families in decisions about their care.
“The provider, registered manager and staff were committed to providing people with person-centred care which promoted a good quality of life.” from the report
Open management
Managers monitored safety and quality, acted on problems and met their responsibilities to be open about significant incidents.
“Where they found areas which required further improvement they took prompt action.” from the report
Listening to feedback
The home gathered views from people and relatives and made changes in response, including changes to visiting arrangements and people's rooms.
“People and their relatives told us if they made suggestions about how the service could be improved the provider took action where possible.” from the report
PPE was not always used correctly
needs fixingInspectors saw two occasions when staff did not follow good practice with PPE. The provider arranged reminders and asked staff to challenge poor practice.
“We were not fully assured staff were consistently using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Emergency medicine access
needs fixingOne infrequently used emergency medicine was not easy to access, and not all staff were confident about giving it. Training and clearer storage information were arranged during the inspection.
“One infrequently used emergency rescue medicine was not easily accessible and not all staff were confident to administer the medicine.” from the report
Care records needed updating
needs fixingSome records were inaccurate or not up to date on the first inspection day. The home reviewed them and corrected the information before the second visit.
“On the first day of our inspection we found some records were not accurate and up to date.” from the report
Staffing concerns reported
needs fixingAlthough inspectors saw call bells answered promptly and care provided as needed, some people said there were times when more staff were needed.
“Some people told us there were enough staff to provide people's support, but other people said there were times more staff were needed.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that all staff use PPE correctly and safely?
- 02Where is the emergency rescue medicine kept, and how do you make sure every relevant staff member knows how to give it?
- 03How do you monitor staffing levels at busy times and respond when more staff are needed?
- 04How do you check that care records stay accurate and up to date?
- 05What medicines management improvements have been completed since this inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings came from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 August 2021 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 Kendal Care Home
9 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2021Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2015Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvement
- May 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 June 2013.
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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Westmorland and Furness
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 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.