CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kenilworth Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable infection control arrangements, testing, personal protective equipment and visiting procedures. They were also told that measures were in place to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Kenilworth Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and support for safe visiting during the COVID-19 outbreak.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 31 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, and asked about staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors found good testing arrangements and said these helped staff respond quickly when an outbreak happened. Staff had training to manage infection risks, and the home worked flexibly to maintain safe staffing levels.
Inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, followed visiting and social distancing guidance, admitted people safely and kept its infection control policy up to date. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Outbreak testing
The home had good testing arrangements. Inspectors said these helped staff respond quickly when an outbreak occurred.
“Good testing regimes were in place. This had supported staff to act quickly when an outbreak occurred.” from the report
Contact with loved ones
People were supported to keep in touch with relatives, and visiting procedures had been explained to them.
“People were supported to maintain contact with their loved ones. Procedures around visiting the home had been communicated to relatives.” from the report
Infection control training
Staff had received training about infection risks and used it in practice. The home also worked flexibly to maintain safe staffing levels during the pandemic.
“Staff had received and implemented their training to manage the risks of cross infection.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently testing people and staff when there is an infection outbreak?
- 02How would you maintain safe staffing levels if COVID-19 or another infection caused staff absences?
- 03How do you currently support residents to keep in contact with their loved ones during an outbreak?
- 04How do you make sure staff and visiting professionals meet the current vaccination or exemption requirements?
- 05When was your infection prevention and control policy last reviewed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not rate the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 February 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, January 2019
Kenilworth Care Home was rated Good overall, but inspectors found environmental safety risks that required improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 7 January and 17 January 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, staff and managers, and reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and day-to-day records.
People were generally safe, well cared for and supported by staff who knew them. Medicines, staffing, recruitment, fire checks and infection control systems were mostly good. The home supported people's health, food choices, activities, relationships and complaints.
The main problems were with environmental risks and record keeping. Hot water temperatures were above safe limits without action being taken, and the kitchen layout created a risk of burns or scalds. Risk assessments and some records did not always reflect people's involvement or current risks.
The overall rating stayed Good, as did Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Safe was rated Requires Improvement. The home took some immediate action during the inspection, including keeping the kitchen door locked and addressing missing toilet roll holders.
Kind, personal care
People said staff knew their routines, likes and dislikes. Inspectors observed warm and respectful relationships.
“People told us they were cared for by staff who knew them well.” from the report
Good medicines support
Medicine records were fully completed, stocks were sufficient and controlled medicines were safely managed.
“Good systems were in place to support people with their medicines.” from the report
Choice and activities
People had choices about food and activities. Staff offered group events and activities linked to people's interests.
“People told us there was lots going on at the service and it was personal choice about whether to participate.” from the report
Health and nutrition
The home completed assessments before admission, followed health professionals' advice and supported nutritional needs.
“People were supported with their nutritional needs.” from the report
Improving oversight
The provider had strengthened its audits and used action plans to track improvements.
“The provider had made improvements to the quality assurance of the service since the last inspection.” from the report
Environmental safety
seriousRecorded hot water temperatures were above safe limits without action. The cooker was close to a busy kitchen doorway, creating a risk of burns and scalds.
“Risks posed from the environment were not always recognised.” from the report
Risk records
needs fixingRisk assessments needed updating so they accurately reflected the risks affecting people.
“Risk assessment records needed to be updated to ensure they reflected the actual risks in place to people.” from the report
Building condition
minorSome areas needed updating, including paintwork, decoration and uneven floorboards. An improvement plan was in place.
“Many aspects of the service were in need of updating.” from the report
Care record detail
minorPeople said they had been involved in planning and reviewing their care, but this was not always recorded.
“Although the care records did not detail people's involvement in their care, people told us they had been involved in planning and reviewing their care.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to make sure hot water temperatures are checked and acted on when they are above safe limits?
- 02How is the kitchen door kept secure, and how is the risk from the cooker now managed?
- 03How often are risk assessments reviewed, and how do you make sure they reflect each person's current risks?
- 04How do you record people's involvement in planning and reviewing their care?
- 05What work has been completed on the uneven floorboards, paintwork and decoration since the inspection?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and the overall Good rating remained unchanged from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 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 Kenilworth Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
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.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 2011.
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
31 live-in carers within about an hour of Redcar and Cleveland
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 £1,280 a week. 29 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.