CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kerwin Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2020
Kerwin Court was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and visiting arrangements.
Inspectors visited the home on 14 August 2020. This was an announced, targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic. It focused only on infection prevention and control in the home.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, shielding, admissions, personal protective equipment and testing safely. They also found that the infection control policy was up to date.
The home used appointment-only visits, outdoor spaces, video calls and a separate visiting room. It was clean, had regular cleaning, and its layout helped people isolate when needed.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report is not a full assessment of all aspects of care, and it does not give ratings for the other four questions.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had effective arrangements to prevent and manage infections, including safe use of PPE and access to testing.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
Visitors were asked to attend by appointment. The home used outdoor areas and a separate room with an external door to support visits and social distancing.
“There was clear communication to visitors which were by appointment only.” from the report
Keeping people connected
People were supported to maintain contact with friends and family through video calls.
“People were supported to keep in touch with their friends and families using video calls.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean, had hand and protective equipment stations, and maintained a cleaning schedule.
“The service was clean with personal protective stations at short intervals.” from the report
Isolation and activities
The building's layout supported isolation when needed. People who were shielding could continue rehabilitation and meaningful activities, including time outside.
“The layout of the service had allowed for isolation when needed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your visiting arrangements changed since the inspection in August 2020?
- 02How do you currently manage isolation when someone is shielding or has an infection?
- 03How do you test people living here and staff, and how quickly are results acted on?
- 04How is PPE provided, used and checked by staff today?
- 05How do you support people to keep in contact with family when face-to-face visits are limited?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other four areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 August 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.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no serious risks identified.
This was a comprehensive, announced inspection on 8 January 2019. Two inspectors observed care, spoke with people, visitors and staff, and checked care records, staff files, training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, medicines were managed properly, staff understood people's needs, and care promoted dignity, choice, independence and rehabilitation.
The home did not have a registered manager at the inspection. A manager was running the home day to day and was in the process of registering with the CQC. The overall Good rating remained unchanged from the previous inspection.
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found systems to manage risks, staffing, infection control, accidents and medicines. Medicines staff had regular competency checks.
“There were robust systems in place to manage, administer, store and dispose of medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and supported them with kindness, dignity, privacy and attention to their choices.
“We observed staff being caring, attentive and responsive and saw positive interactions and appropriate communication.” from the report
Rehabilitation and independence
The home supported people to build skills and take part in daily activities. Inspectors found examples of progress in mobility, speech, memory and independent living.
“The service continued to rehabilitate people as much as possible” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's backgrounds, likes, dislikes and routines. Staff were described as understanding individual needs and preferences.
“Care plans contained detailed information on the person's likes, dislikes and daily routine with clear guidance for staff on how best to support and develop that individual.” from the report
Positive management and teamwork
People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the home. Inspectors found open communication, staff support and quality assurance checks.
“The service continued to have a positive culture and staff morale remained good.” from the report
No registered manager in post
minorThere was no registered manager on the inspection day. A manager was in day-to-day charge and was applying to register with the CQC.
“The service did not have a registered manager in post on the day of our inspection.” from the report
- 01What is the current position on the day-to-day manager's CQC registration?
- 02How would you assess and plan rehabilitation goals for my relative before they move in?
- 03How do you make sure medicines are given safely and that staff remain competent to administer them?
- 04Which activities and community links would be suitable for my relative's interests and abilities?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in reviewing the care and rehabilitation plan?
This was a comprehensive announced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including care, the premises, records, staffing and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 January 2019 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 Kerwin Court
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.