CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kevlin House
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention measures, including personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning, visiting arrangements and outbreak management. However, individual COVID-19 risk assessments were not always formally recorded.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, but individual COVID-19 risk assessments were not always recorded.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 28 January 2021. It looked at how the home was preventing and controlling COVID-19 infections. The home cared for 14 people, although it could care for up to 15.
Inspectors found several good practices. The home had clear visiting arrangements, screening and testing for visitors, regular communication with relatives, a clean environment and reviewed cleaning schedules. Staff had training and competency checks covering handwashing and personal protective equipment.
Inspectors were assured about the home's use of personal protective equipment, testing, social distancing, admissions and infection outbreak arrangements. However, infection control risks were not always formally recorded. There were no individual COVID-19 risk assessments for staff or people using the service.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide an overall quality rating.
Communication with relatives
Relatives received regular contact, including weekly telephone calls and virtual care plan reviews.
“There was regular communication with relatives. This included weekly telephone calls to relatives as well as virtual care plan reviews with people and their relatives.” from the report
Infection control training
Designated staff had external infection control and COVID-19 training. Staff also had regular checks on handwashing and personal protective equipment.
“Designated staff had attended external training arranged by the clinical commissioning group on infection control and COVID-19.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the environment clean, and cleaning schedules had been changed to reflect the effects of COVID-19.
“The environment was clean. Cleaning schedules had been reviewed to take in to account the impact of COVID-19.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
Visitors were given clear information, with entry points, screening and testing intended to reduce infection risks.
“Visiting arrangements had been clearly communicated to visitors. There were measures in place to help prevent visitors from catching or spreading infections.” from the report
Risk assessments were not recorded
needs fixingInspectors found that infection control risks were not always formally recorded. There were no individual COVID-19 risk assessments for staff or people using the service at the time of the inspection.
“However, this was not always formally recorded. For example, there were no individual COVID-19 risk assessments for staff or people using the service.” from the report
- 01Have individual COVID-19 risk assessments now been completed for each person using the service and each member of staff?
- 02How often are these individual risk assessments reviewed and updated?
- 03How are visitors currently screened and tested before entering the home?
- 04How do you check that staff remain competent in handwashing and using personal protective equipment?
- 05How will relatives receive regular updates and take part in care plan reviews?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, so it did not provide a full service rating or assess all five areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 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.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Rated Outstanding overall; inspectors found exceptionally caring, responsive and well-led care, with Safe and Effective rated Good.
Inspectors carried out a planned, unannounced inspection in January 2019. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and a visiting healthcare professional. They reviewed care records, medicines, training, complaints and quality checks.
People were described as safe and well supported. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable risk assessments, safe medicines practice, good training and effective work with healthcare professionals. People were supported to make choices and to receive care in the least restrictive way.
The strongest findings were about kindness, personal choice and individual activities. Staff knew people very well, supported their interests and helped them stay connected with relatives and the community. Leadership and quality improvement were also rated Outstanding.
The overall rating rose from Good at the previous inspection in 2016 to Outstanding. Safe and Effective remained Good, while Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Outstanding.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were compassionate and empowering. Inspectors saw them give people time, respond calmly when someone was distressed and respect people's dignity.
“Staff were caring, compassionate and empowering which reflected the provider's values of person centred care.” from the report
People had real choice
People were involved in decisions about everyday life and care. Staff avoided unnecessary routines and supported people to decide how they wanted to spend their time.
“People were fully involved with decisions about their care.” from the report
Personalised activities
Staff found out about people's interests and helped them continue or rediscover hobbies. Activities included gardening, baking, trips out, music and contact with animals.
“Staff were genuinely interested in, and found out about, people's interests and supported them to maintain or rekindle these.” from the report
Strong leadership
Leaders involved people, relatives and staff in developing the home. They used audits, feedback and staff learning to support continuous improvement.
“There was a strong focus on learning and continuous improvement at the service.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's changing needs. Staff were trained in medicines and checks were carried out to make sure medicines were managed safely.
“The provider employed enough staff to make sure staff could meet people's assessed needs.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What has changed since the January 2019 inspection, and are the same staffing levels and person-centred practices still in place?
- 02How will you learn about my relative's interests, routines, communication style and cultural or religious preferences?
- 03What activities, trips and community links could my relative take part in, based on their abilities and interests?
- 04How will you involve my relative and our family in care decisions, reviews and updates about changing needs?
- 05How would you discuss and arrange my relative's end of life wishes, including contact with healthcare professionals or religious leaders?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection that looked at the overall service and all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was Good in 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 April 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 Kevlin House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Good to Outstanding.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 March 2015.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 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.