CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Kenilworth Manor
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Kenilworth Manor was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and measures to manage COVID-19 staffing pressures.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 14 February 2022. Inspectors gave 72 hours' notice and checked infection prevention and control, as well as whether staffing pressures were affecting care.
Inspectors found good practice. Visitors received safety information and had to complete health screening and show a negative lateral flow test before entering. People and staff were tested regularly, and staff had infection control and personal protective equipment training.
Inspectors were assured about the use of protective equipment, testing, hygiene, social distancing, safe admissions and visiting arrangements. They also found that people were monitored for changes in their health and that the home worked with outside healthcare professionals.
The home was inspected but not rated. The inspection only looked at part of the Safe question, so it does not provide new ratings for the home's overall quality or for the other questions.
Visitor safety checks
Visitors were given clear information about reducing infection risks. Entry included health screening and evidence of a negative lateral flow test.
“Visitors were given detailed information to explain what they should do to maintain the safety of people living in the home and minimise the risks of spreading or catching infections.” from the report
Testing and protective equipment
The home had regular COVID-19 testing for people and staff. Staff had training in infection control and the safe use of protective equipment.
“The provider had implemented a regular programme of COVID-19 testing for people and staff and staff had received training in infection control and the correct use of personal protective equipment.” from the report
Health monitoring
People were regularly checked for signs that their health was getting worse. The home also worked with outside healthcare professionals.
“People were regularly assessed and monitored to identify any signs of deterioration in their health” from the report
Managing infection risks
Inspectors were assured about the home's arrangements for preventing and managing outbreaks, including its infection control policy and premises hygiene.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now, and when was the policy last updated?
- 02How are staffing pressures affecting care, and what measures are used to reduce any impact on people living in the home?
- 03What are the current arrangements for testing visitors, people living in the home and staff?
- 04How are visits managed now, and what checks are required before someone enters?
- 05How are changes in people's health identified, and how quickly is outside healthcare support involved?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and staffing pressures within the Safe question; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 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, December 2017
Kenilworth Manor was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some improvements still needed in medicines practice and care records.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 22 November 2017. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care and lunchtime support, reviewed four care plans and daily records, and checked recruitment, training and quality monitoring.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, appropriate risk management and safe medicines systems. They also found staff were caring, respectful and responsive to people's individual needs.
There were two areas needing improvement. During a medicines round, a medicine was left in a pot while staff responded to an alarm, which increased the risk of an error. Some care plans did not contain enough detail to support a consistent approach. The home had already identified the care planning issue and was taking action.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke very positively about the care. Inspectors saw staff listening, offering reassurance and treating people with dignity.
“During our visit we saw staff engaged in friendly and respectful conversations with people and took time to listen to what they had to say.” from the report
People's choices respected
Staff supported people to make choices and remain as independent as they wished. The report gives examples of people being supported to go out and choose how they spent their time.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.” from the report
Good activities and community links
The home offered varied activities based on people's interests and helped them maintain links with local groups and organisations.
“The activities organiser arranged daily activities in the home, such as scrabble, poetry, dominoes, cards and manicures.” from the report
Strong management and improvement work
Managers used audits, feedback and a mock inspection to identify areas for improvement. Staff said they felt supported and valued.
“The provider and registered manager had a positive approach to examining and auditing processes to identify where improvements were required.” from the report
Medicines round was interrupted
seriousAn emergency alarm interrupted a medicines round. A medicine that had already been placed in a pot was put back in the trolley, which inspectors said increased the risk of a medication error.
“This was not in accordance with best practice and increased the risk of a medication error.” from the report
Some care plans lacked detail
needs fixingCare plans were person-centred, but some did not give enough detail for staff to provide care consistently. The provider had already identified this and planned further care planning training.
“However, we found more detail in some care plans would support staff in providing a more consistent approach to some people's care.” from the report
- 01What is the home's procedure for protecting medicines rounds from interruptions or emergencies?
- 02How do you check that medicines administration records are complete and accurate?
- 03How will you make sure each person's care plan contains enough detail for staff to provide consistent care?
- 04What care planning training have staff completed since this inspection?
- 05How are relatives kept informed and involved in their family member's care?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 December 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 Kenilworth Manor
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 April 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Warwickshire
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.