CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Kenton Manor
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2024
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care but inaccurate records and weak oversight led to two breaches.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 January and 1 February 2024. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed six care plans, medicines records and other records about the home.
The home had enough staff, safe equipment and safe moving and handling. It was clean, visiting was unrestricted, and people and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Staff were trained and worked with health professionals when people needed help.
Inspectors found that records about falls, malnutrition, food and drink, care, consent and the home's quality checks were not always accurate or up to date. Records also did not show how the provider had followed its duty to be open and honest when things went wrong.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were all rated Requires Improvement. The provider must send an action plan, and CQC will monitor progress.
Kind and respectful care
People, relatives and a health professional spoke positively about the caring nature of staff. Inspectors saw a positive atmosphere at the home.
“There was a positive atmosphere at the home.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, including one-to-one support where required. Staff were trained and supported.
“There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safe environment
Checks and tests were carried out on the building and equipment. The home was clean and infection control procedures were followed.
“Checks and tests were carried out to make sure the building and equipment was safe.” from the report
Working with health professionals
Staff worked with other services to support people's health needs and sought medical reviews when concerns arose.
“They appropriately raise concerns about residents who are unwell and seek medical review with appropriate urgency.” from the report
Risk records were not reliable
seriousRecords about falls and malnutrition risks were not always accurate or up to date. This could make it harder to show how risks were being managed.
“Records relating to the assessment of falls and malnutrition were not always up to date or accurate.” from the report
Nutrition and care records
seriousSome needs assessments contradicted each other. Records of people's food and drink intake and risk of malnutrition were not always accurate.
“Some of these assessments were contradictory which could lead to confusion.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
seriousThe home's monitoring system did not identify all the problems with records, so improvements were not always made promptly.
“The provider's quality monitoring system had not identified all the issues with the maintenance of records.” from the report
Duty of candour records
seriousRecords did not show how the provider had met its legal duty to be open and honest after something went wrong.
“Records did not demonstrate how the provider was meeting their responsibilities under the duty of candour.” from the report
Minor medicines issues
minorInspectors found some minor problems with medicines management. These were addressed immediately.
“We identified some minor issues relating to the management of medicines which were immediately addressed.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure falls and malnutrition risk records are accurate and kept up to date?
- 02How do you check that food and drink records reflect what people have actually eaten and drunk?
- 03How are contradictory needs assessments found and corrected before they cause confusion?
- 04What checks now make sure the quality monitoring system identifies record-keeping problems promptly?
- 05What is the new duty of candour process, and how will you show families that it is followed when something goes wrong?
This was an unannounced inspection prompted by concerns about falls, staffing, moving and handling, meals and records; it looked at the premises and care, and the report gives ratings only for Safe, Effective and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 March 2024 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, June 2021
Kenton Manor is rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but medicine records still needed review.
Inspectors visited on 29 April, 6 May and 14 May 2021. They reviewed care, medicines, staffing, records, the building and infection control. They spoke with relatives and staff and observed care in communal areas.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe premises, good infection control and kind interactions between staff and people.
The home had improved since its previous inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement. A new registered manager had made changes and the home was no longer in breach of the regulations identified previously.
Medicine management had improved, but some medicine care plans, 'as required' medicine instructions and records for thickeners still needed review. The manager acted during the inspection and introduced a new recording process for fluid thickeners.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive interactions and found that staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect.
“People were treated well and supported by kind and caring staff.” from the report
Safe staffing and premises
The home had enough staff to support people safely. Recruitment checks and environmental risk assessments were in place.
“The premises were safe and there were enough staff to safely support people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs and choices. Staff used different ways to support communication and involved families in care planning.
“People had personalised care plans which met their needs and choices.” from the report
Improved leadership
Inspectors found better organisation and a more positive staff culture under the new manager. Quality checks were being used to monitor the service.
“Since our last inspection there was a new registered manager in post who had made improvements throughout the service.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported with group and one-to-one activities and to maintain social relationships.
“Activities are going on all day every day even at the weekend.” from the report
Medicine records needed more work
needs fixingSome medicine care plans and 'as required' medicine protocols were not fully person-centred. Recording and guidance for fluid thickeners also needed improvement, although the manager acted during the inspection.
“Further work was needed to ensure that care plans for medicines were person centred and that where people needed additional support the information within care plans was followed.” from the report
- 01How have all medicine-related care plans been reviewed since the inspection?
- 02How are 'as required' medicines recorded and kept person-centred?
- 03How do staff record and monitor fluid thickeners now?
- 04How will you involve our relative and family in monthly care plan reviews?
- 05How can families give feedback or raise a complaint with the manager?
This was a follow-up inspection looking at action from the previous inspection and infection prevention and control, but the report gives ratings for all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 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.
Every inspection of Kenton Manor
9 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2021Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2020Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2020Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2019Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvement
- July 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
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
36 live-in carers within about an hour of Newcastle upon Tyne
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 £1,160 a week. 30 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.