CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kensington Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring staff and safe staffing, but important records, medicines guidance and management checks were not reliable enough.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 17 and 23 October 2023, and gathered further information by telephone on 25 October. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and other professionals. They also reviewed care records, medicine records, recruitment files, risk assessments and safety checks.
The home had enough suitable staff, and staff generally knew people well. People and relatives said they felt safe, and most described staff as kind and caring. Infection control was good, people could receive visitors, and medicines were generally managed safely.
However, care and risk records were sometimes incomplete, inaccurate or out of date. Guidance and records for creams and medicines taken when needed were not always clear. Management checks had not found all these problems. The overall rating changed from Good at the last inspection to Requires Improvement. The report found a breach of Regulation 17 on good governance.
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors found enough skilled and experienced staff to meet people's health and physical needs safely. Recruitment processes were also found to be safe.
“The provider ensured there were enough suitable staff. The provider operated safe recruitment processes.” from the report
People felt safe
People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff knew how to raise concerns and understood people's safety needs.
“People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm.” from the report
Kind atmosphere
Most people and relatives described a positive atmosphere. Staff were seen as caring, approachable and knowledgeable about people's needs.
“Most people told us there was a positive atmosphere in the home.” from the report
Infection control and cleanliness
Inspectors found safe infection control practices and systems for checking the building's safety and cleanliness.
“People were protected from the risk of infection as staff were following safe infection prevention and control practices.” from the report
Incomplete care and risk records
seriousSome care plans and risk assessments lacked important details or contained information that was no longer current. Staff were following agreed protocols, but these did not always match the records.
“Care records were not always complete or accurate.” from the report
Medicines guidance and records
seriousRecords and instructions for creams and medicines taken when needed were not always clear or complete. Audits had not identified these problems.
“Guidance and records were not always in place to support the safe administration of topical medicines.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousThe provider's audits did not consistently identify problems with care records, medicines or person-centred documents. This led to a breach of Regulation 17.
“The provider's quality assurance systems and processes were not always effective.” from the report
Limited personalised activities
needs fixingCare plans did not always set clear goals for independence and quality of life. Some people had limited social engagement or community access.
“I wish staff would do more activities with [family member] and they were not just left sitting.” from the report
- 01What has been changed in the care plans and risk assessments that inspectors found incomplete, inaccurate or out of date?
- 02How are staff now guided and checked when applying creams or giving medicines taken when needed?
- 03How will management audits identify problems before they affect people's safety?
- 04What individual goals and activities are now in place to support each person's independence and access to the community?
- 05What progress has been made with the action plan and the additional management support mentioned in the report?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other key question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection when calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 December 2023 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 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and found good support for people's wellbeing.
The inspection took place on 17 November 2020 as part of a CQC review of infection prevention and control in care homes during the coronavirus pandemic. It was announced and focused on whether the home was meeting infection control requirements.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using personal protective equipment safely, following social distancing and shielding rules, managing visitors, and keeping its infection control policy up to date. The home had cleaning schedules, extra cleaning of frequently touched areas, infection control checks and supplies of personal protective equipment.
Staff also supported people's emotional wellbeing through activities and helped people keep in touch with relatives. This inspection did not give an overall or question rating. Safe was recorded as 'Inspected but not rated', and the other areas were not assessed in this report.
Infection control
The home had measures to reduce the spread of infection, including cleaning schedules, extra cleaning of frequently touched areas and infection control audits.
“The home had a cleaning schedule in place and had implemented additional cleaning of frequently touched areas.” from the report
Personal protective equipment
Staff had relevant infection control training, were seen wearing appropriate personal protective equipment and had enough supplies available.
“Staff had undertaken training in infection prevention and control (IPC), personal protective equipment (PPE), hand hygiene and other Covid-19 related training.” from the report
Emotional wellbeing
People were supported with activities suited to their interests, including individual activities and celebrations.
“Staff supported people's social and emotional wellbeing.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to keep in touch with friends and relatives, while relatives received regular updates.
“Relatives were kept up to date with weekly telephone calls, letters and cards.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control audits and checks are carried out now, and what did the most recent results show?
- 02How are visitors currently screened and how are visits managed to reduce the risk of infection?
- 03Are personal protective equipment supplies still available in each person's room, and how is staff training kept up to date?
- 04How are people's Covid-19 risk assessments and individual care plans reviewed and updated now?
- 05What is the latest full inspection rating for the home, including Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led?
This was an announced thematic review focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not provide ratings for the other four questions or an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 December 2020 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 Hall
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- December 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £960 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“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.