CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kent House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including testing, protective equipment, hygiene, visiting and outbreak arrangements. The provider also said it had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- 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, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control and visiting arrangements were protecting people.
This was a targeted inspection on 21 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures were affecting the home. The visit was announced one working day in advance.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, supporting testing, managing outbreaks and admitting people safely. The home had an up-to-date infection control policy, regular checks and enough protective equipment.
Visiting arrangements followed government guidance. Visitors were asked to arrange visits in advance and complete lateral flow tests. The home also supported telephone and video calls when relatives could not visit, and facilitated visits in exceptional circumstances such as end-of-life care.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or a full rating for all five areas of care.
Safe visiting
The home had arrangements to reduce infection risks during visits. It also supported visits in exceptional circumstances and offered telephone or video calls when needed.
“The service followed current government visiting guidance. They ensured that safe visiting arrangements were in place.” from the report
Infection control policy
The home had an up-to-date infection control policy and procedures that were updated as government guidance changed.
“There was an up to date infection control policy in place and there were standard operating procedures that were regularly updated in line with changes in government policy.” from the report
Protective equipment
The home had enough protective equipment and had worked with local agencies to maintain supplies.
“The service had also worked effectively with local agencies in ensuring there were sufficient supplies.” from the report
Staff training and checks
Staff had training on COVID-19 and protective equipment. The home carried out regular checks of infection prevention and control practice.
“All staff had received training about COVID-19, and in the use of PPE.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing staffing pressures linked to COVID-19, and what effect has this had on people's care?
- 02What are the current visiting arrangements, including what happens if there is an infection outbreak?
- 03How do visitors and staff complete infection testing, and what protective equipment is currently required?
- 04How are infection prevention and control checks carried out, and what happens if a problem is found?
- 05How will you keep relatives updated if government infection control guidance changes?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 March 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, February 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe medicines, infection controls and well-led care, while the Effective rating was not reassessed.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 28 January 2021. Inspectors looked at Safe, parts of Effective, and Well-led because concerns had been raised about medicines, staffing, pressure care, eating and drinking, and management.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection to Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable risk assessments and effective COVID-19 infection controls.
People were offered suitable food and drink, including choices for cultural, religious and dietary needs. The home was found to be well managed, with person-centred care plans and a quality monitoring system.
Effective was inspected but not rated. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit. Previous ratings for areas not inspected were used when calculating the overall rating.
Safe medicines
Staff supported people to take medicines safely. Records were of a good standard and medicines were stored securely.
“Staff supported people to take their medicines safely. They were patient and waited until people had swallowed their medicines and did not leave medicines unattended.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors found systems to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection for people, staff and visitors.
“The service had appropriate infection control and prevention systems in operation to provide a COVID-19 safe environment for people, staff and visitors.” from the report
Suitable staffing
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staffing levels were reviewed according to people's dependency and care needs.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs. The registered manager regularly reviewed staffing levels, based on people's individual dependency needs and the running of the service.” from the report
Person-centred care
Care plans reflected people's preferences, wishes and cultural or religious needs. Families and people using the home were involved in developing them.
“People's care plans were person centred. People, their friends and families had been involved and contributed to the development of these plans.” from the report
Strong management
Inspectors found good oversight from the manager and provider. The home used quality checks to identify and address issues.
“There was a robust quality assurance system in place. The registered manager and provider were automatically alerted to quality issues regarding care and/or the environment.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently check that staffing levels remain enough when people's needs change?
- 02How are medicines records checked now, including medicines given only when needed or medicines that must be given in a particular way?
- 03How do you monitor people who are at risk of pressure ulcers, and how often are they repositioned?
- 04How do you monitor people's weight, eating and drinking, and referrals to a GP or dietician?
- 05What infection control and visiting arrangements are currently in place?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, parts of Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected, and previous ratings for areas not inspected were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 February 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 Kent House
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2021Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- January 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2018InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- May 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 May 2017.
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 Harrow
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 £1,270 a week. 75 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The interaction she gives my mother is incredible, singing, dancing, taking her to groups, on plenty of walks which mum always loves.”
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
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.