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.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control measures, but visiting arrangements were too restrictive at the time.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 6 May 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, including visiting arrangements.
Inspectors found good arrangements for hand hygiene, screening visitors, face coverings, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and social distancing. Staff had training and support to follow infection-control guidance. People were also supported to keep in touch with relatives in other ways.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured about visits. At the time, visits inside the main house were limited to 15 minutes for everyone, without individual visiting plans. The report says visits increased to 45 minutes from 17 May 2021. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating.
Infection prevention
Inspectors found that the home had suitable infection-control procedures, including screening, hand hygiene, face coverings and clear information for visitors.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
PPE and testing
There was a good supply of protective equipment, staff used it appropriately and whole-home testing was carried out in line with guidance.
“Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was readily available around the building.” from the report
Cleaning and monitoring
The home had infection-control audits and a cleaning schedule covering all areas of the building.
“A cleaning schedule for all areas of the home was in place and implemented to ensure the whole home was effectively cleaned on a regular basis.” from the report
Keeping people connected
Staff helped people maintain contact with relatives and friends, including through video calls when usual visits were restricted.
“Staff helped people to stay in touch with their friends and family.” from the report
Visits were too short
needs fixingAt the time of inspection, visits inside the main house were limited to 15 minutes for everyone. Inspectors found no individual visiting plans, so the approach was not tailored to people’s circumstances.
“However, there was no evidence of individual visiting plans, with a blanket approach being taken of 15 minutes for all visitors entering the main house.” from the report
- 01How long are indoor visits now, and are they still subject to a standard time limit?
- 02How do you tailor visiting arrangements to each person's needs and relationships?
- 03What happens if a relative needs a longer visit because of a person's health, communication or emotional needs?
- 04How often are infection-control audits carried out, and what happens when they identify a problem?
- 05How are relatives kept informed if visiting rules change?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, including visiting arrangements; it did not assess all five areas of care or provide a full quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 June 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.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 and 16 January 2020. One inspector spoke with nine people, 10 staff and three visiting professionals. They observed care and reviewed care files, staff records, training records and service documents.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people felt safe, staff were kind and respectful, medicines were managed safely and care plans reflected people's needs and preferences.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in January 2019. The report says the home had completed an action plan and improvements had been made. No regulations were breached in this inspection.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse, and individual risks were assessed and reviewed.
“I feel safe here. The staff are always there if I am worried about anything.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's routines, preferences and support needs.
“There was a strong, visible person-centred culture.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's history, health needs, likes and dislikes. They were up to date and gave staff clear guidance.
“Care plans were up-to-date and were clearly laid out.” from the report
Good activities and relationships
People took part in activities such as trips, entertainment, arts and crafts. They were encouraged to stay in touch with family and friends.
“People engaged in a variety of person-centred activities and spent time in the local community.” from the report
Improvements in management
The home introduced stronger audits and followed up actions. This helped it improve from Requires Improvement to Good since the previous inspection.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you meet my relative's specific health needs, and how would you involve their GP or other professionals?
- 02How do you make sure medicines are given correctly and records remain complete?
- 03What activities would be suitable for my relative, and how would you support them to keep in touch with family and friends?
- 04How would staff communicate with my relative if they had difficulty speaking, understanding or expressing their wishes?
- 05What improvements have been made since the previous Requires Improvement rating, and how are you checking that they continue?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the report says the previous inspection rating was Requires Improvement and that improvements had been made. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 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 Kent House
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 2010.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,020 to £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.