CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Kents Hill Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were supported safely, with detailed risk assessments, enough staff and suitable recruitment checks. One medicines incident meant several people did not receive medicines at the right time, and the home said it was taking action.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had induction, ongoing and specialist training. People were supported with food, healthcare and consent, although some people were unhappy with the variety of food and communication with the GP had previously caused delays.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and friendly. People were offered choices and involved in decisions about their care, while their privacy and dignity were protected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans had become more personal and included people's likes, dislikes, history and relationships. People and relatives were involved in care reviews, activities were available, and complaints were responded to.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Quality monitoring systems were effective and managers acted on issues found in audits. The home had an open culture, although there was no registered manager in post during the inspection.
What inspectors found, September 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care and improvements, but noted a medication incident and mixed views about food.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 12 and 14 August 2018. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines records and other documents.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, detailed risk assessments and staff who understood safeguarding procedures.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care plans had improved and reflected people's preferences, history and needs. Complaints were recorded and acted on, and quality checks had become more effective.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in August 2017. The earlier breaches about person-centred care and good governance no longer applied.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, including at weekends. Staff responded to call bells within a reasonable time.
“There were enough staff on shift to make sure people were safe, this included staffing levels at the weekend.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people warmly and protected their dignity and privacy. People said they felt respected and involved.
“Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect and spent time getting to know them and their specific needs and wishes.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans had improved since the previous inspection. They recorded people's preferences, personal history and relationships, helping staff understand their individual needs.
“Care plans we saw had detailed information about people's likes and dislikes, and documented people's personal history and family relationships.” from the report
Improved oversight
Audits covered care records, staff files, medicines and the environment. When problems were found, managers set actions to make improvements.
“Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor all aspects of the service and were effective.” from the report
Food choices
needs fixingPeople had mixed views about the food, including concerns about variety. The home was seeking views and making changes to its menus.
“At teatime it's unimaginative and all very boring, I would like more variety.” from the report
No registered manager
minorThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. The manager was going through the CQC registration process.
“There was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
Rating display
minorThe latest CQC rating was not displayed when inspectors arrived. The manager said it had been removed by accident and displayed it immediately after being told.
“The latest CQC inspection report rating was not on display at the service.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure medicines can always be accessed and given at the right time?
- 02What food choices and menu changes have been made following residents' complaints and feedback?
- 03Has the manager now completed the CQC registration process?
- 04How are care plans reviewed, and how will my relative and our family be involved?
- 05What activities and outings are currently available, including use of the minibus?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home; the report says Safe, Effective and Caring remained Good, while Responsive and Well-led improved to Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 September 2018 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, September 2017
Kents Hill Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; care was generally safe, effective and kind, but personalised care and management checks were not reliable enough.
Inspectors visited without notice on 29 and 30 August 2017. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and the manager. They also reviewed care records, staff files and management documents.
The home was rated Good for safety, effectiveness and caring. Inspectors found suitable staffing on the days visited, safe medicine arrangements, trained staff, support with food and healthcare, and kind, respectful interactions.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for responsiveness and leadership. Care plans did not always include people's history, preferences and specific needs. Some people did not always receive care that matched their preferences, and management audits had failed to identify or complete important actions.
The home had improved since the February 2017 inspection. Earlier breaches about staff support and consent law had been resolved. However, breaches remained for person-centred care and good governance.
People felt safe
People generally said they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and risk assessments were in place.
“People told us they felt safe when being supported by the staff.” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors found no medicine administration errors during the visit. Medicines were stored safely and records checked were accurate.
“All the medication administration records (MAR) we looked at were accurate and medicines were safely stored in a temperature controlled environment.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were observed interacting positively with people. Privacy, dignity and visitors' access were respected.
“During our inspection we saw staff interact with people in a kind and supportive way.” from the report
Staff support improved
The home had introduced regular supervision, appraisals and training. Inspectors judged that earlier problems in this area had been addressed.
“During our inspection on 29 and 30 August 2017 we saw that improvements had been made within this area, and the service was no longer in breach of this regulation.” from the report
Activities and complaints
People could join activities of their choice. The complaints system was available and complaints had received prompt responses.
“The complaints file contained a detailed record of complaints that had been made, and we saw that prompt responses had been made and actions taken where appropriate .” from the report
Care was not always personalised
seriousSome care plans mainly listed tasks and did not include enough information about people's lives, preferences or dislikes. This was especially concerning because the home used many agency staff.
“This meant that staff members, working at the service that did not always have sufficient information available to enable person centred care.” from the report
Preferences were missed
needs fixingInspectors found examples of a drink being thickened when it was not needed and a person wearing someone else's pyjamas. Several people were also unhappy with the food.
“Care was not always delivered in a personalised manner.” from the report
Management checks were not effective
seriousAudits did not always find the problems, and actions from the home and external organisations were not always completed by their deadlines.
“The audits that the service carried out did not always identify all the improvements required” from the report
Consent records were incomplete
needs fixingMost of the files checked contained unsigned consent forms. This meant there was no recorded evidence that people had consented to their care plans.
“Most of the files we looked at contained unsigned versions of these forms.” from the report
Heavy use of agency staff
needs fixingThere were enough staff during the inspection, but the home relied heavily on agency workers. People and staff said this could mean unfamiliar staff and rushed, less personalised care.
“The manager acknowledged that whilst staffing numbers were appropriate for the needs of the service, this relied heavily on agency staff members.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure each person's care plan records their history, likes, dislikes and care preferences?
- 02How do agency staff learn about a person's individual needs before providing care?
- 03Have all consent forms now been signed and checked, and how do you monitor this?
- 04Which actions from the previous inspection and external reviews are still outstanding, and what are their completion dates?
- 05What steps are being taken to reduce reliance on agency staff and prevent rushed or missed personalised care?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and investigating earlier concerns about medicines, staffing and nursing care. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 September 2017 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 Kents Hill Care Home
4 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvement
- November 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 November 2016.
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 Milton Keynes
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 £1,260 a week. 90 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.