CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Kensington Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- There were enough staff to meet people's needs, medicines were mostly administered safely, and recruitment checks were robust. Some medicine administration records were incomplete or incorrect, although the home acted during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Some best interest decisions and capacity information were not recorded properly. Inspectors also found a training gap relating to one person's specific needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness and respect. People were involved in decisions, supported to maintain relationships and helped to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans covered people's care and support needs, and care was individualised. Activities were available, but feedback about the range was mixed while an activities coordinator vacancy was being filled.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The culture was positive and the manager was described as open and approachable. The provider had current policies, contingency plans and systems for learning and working with other agencies.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but the Effective rating Requires Improvement because some records and staff training were not adequate.
This was the home's first inspection since it registered. Inspectors visited unannounced on 8 March and 23 March 2022. They spoke with people, staff, relatives and a social worker, and checked care records, medicines records, audits and policies.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, good infection control and a clean, well-maintained environment. People and relatives gave positive feedback about the care. Staff treated people with kindness, respected their privacy and supported their choices.
The main weaknesses were in the Effective area. Some best interest decisions, capacity information and care records were incomplete or misleading. Medicines were usually administered safely, but some records were not completed correctly. There was also a training gap for one person's specific needs.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Effective was rated Requires Improvement, meaning care and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's individual needs and keep them safe. People and relatives said call bells were answered promptly.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's individual needs and maintain their safety.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff supported privacy, independence and involvement in care decisions.
“Staff always treated people with kindness and respect.” from the report
Good infection control
The home had infection control measures in place, including PPE, additional cleaning and recorded checks.
“Additional cleaning of all areas and frequent touch surfaces was in place and recorded regularly by staff.” from the report
Positive leadership
Inspectors found a positive culture and an approachable manager. People, relatives and staff were asked for their views.
“The registered manager was open and honest and encouraged people and staff to go to them with any issues.” from the report
Incomplete best interest records
needs fixingSome records did not properly show how best interest decisions had been made. One care plan was misleading about bed rails, and another person had bed rails without a recorded best interest decision.
“However, some best interest decisions made for people were not recorded appropriately.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingMedicines were mostly given safely, but some administration records were not completed correctly and staff did not always follow the home's policy. The manager took action during the inspection.
“Medicine administration records were not always completed correctly in line with the providers policy, which staff did not always follow.” from the report
Training gap
needs fixingInspectors found that staff needed more training about one person's specific needs. The provider was advised to source further training.
“However, we found that there was a training gap in relation to one person's specific needs.” from the report
Activities interruption
minorThere was a vacancy for activity coordinators, and people's views about activities were mixed. A new coordinator had been recruited and was due to start.
“Activities - there's nothing going on lately it's been a few weeks since the activity person left.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to record best interest decisions, capacity assessments and restrictive practices?
- 02How do you now check that medicine administration records are completed correctly?
- 03What training have staff received for people with specific conditions and needs?
- 04Has the activities coordinator started, and what activities are now available each week?
- 05How do you audit care plans to make sure they accurately reflect people's choices and support?
This was the home's first inspection and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the report does not identify an earlier rating to carry over. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 May 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.
Every inspection of Kensington Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 October 2020.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.