CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Kingfisher Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, with safeguarding processes and risk assessments in place. Medicines were stored and given safely, but records were not always complete.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had checks and audits, submitted required notifications and had plans to improve. There was no registered manager, but a general manager was overseeing the home while the post was advertised.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and the home was well-led, but medicines records and activities needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 6 and 7 June 2022. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led because concerns had been raised about medicines and safeguarding. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals, and checked care and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found safeguarding systems, risk assessments, infection controls and recruitment checks were in place. Staff knew people well and supported their choices. The home also worked with health and social care professionals.
There were some shortfalls. Medicines records had gaps, some staff training was not up to date, and activities were described as needing improvement. There was no registered manager at the time, although a general manager was in charge and plans were in place to improve the service.
Safeguarding
Staff understood how to recognise and report suspected abuse. The manager raised potential safeguarding concerns with the local authority.
“Staff spoke confidently about how they would identify indicators of abuse and what they would do if abuse was witnessed or suspected.” from the report
Risk management
Care plans included assessments and guidance for risks such as falls, skin damage, mobility and malnutrition.
“Care plans contained risk assessments for areas such as falls, mobility, skin integrity and malnutrition and included guidance for staff about how to reduce these risks.” from the report
Staff knowledge
Staff knew people's preferences and supported person-centred care. The home had also worked with a dementia specialist.
“Staff we spoke with knew people well, including their likes and dislikes.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable measures for preventing and managing infections, including the use of protective equipment and testing.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Listening and improvement
The home used audits, a concerns log, surveys and a suggestions box to identify issues and plan improvements.
“The provider had identified through their quality checks and audits that there were further improvements to be made.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingSome medicines records had gaps, and not all medicines given when needed had detailed instructions. The manager had identified this and was changing the auditing arrangements.
“We found some gaps in records and not all 'as required' medicines had detailed protocols in place.” from the report
Staff training
needs fixingSome training was not up to date. Staff had not been supported to complete learning disability training, although the manager arranged relevant training after the inspection.
“We identified the provider had not supported staff to access training for people living with learning disabilities, although people with learning disabilities were living at the service.” from the report
Activities
minorPeople and staff said the activities programme was not good enough. The provider was recruiting an additional activities coordinator and developing existing staff.
“People and staff told us activities provision could be improved.” from the report
Management vacancy
minorThere was no registered manager in post. A general manager was running the home temporarily and the registered manager role was being advertised.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicines recording, and how are gaps and missing protocols now checked?
- 02Have all staff completed the planned learning disability training?
- 03What staffing levels are in place now, including when staff are off sick?
- 04Has a registered manager been appointed since this inspection?
- 05What activities are now available, and how are residents involved in planning them?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, with infection prevention and control also reviewed; the other ratings carried over from the previous inspection published on 20 November 2020. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 July 2022 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, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during the Covid-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 21 October 2020. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control measures as part of a national review of care homes.
The home tested new residents for Covid-19 before admission and isolated them for two weeks. It had systems to separate floors, limit staff movement, provide personal protective equipment and carry out regular testing.
Visitors had to sign in, have their temperature checked and wash their hands. Staff supported activities safely by limiting group sizes, cleaning items and offering one-to-one support.
The home was not given a new overall rating. Safe was inspected but not rated because only part of that area was reviewed. The previous Safe rating was Good.
Safe admissions
New residents were tested before admission and then isolated for two weeks to help make sure they were free of Covid-19.
“People were not admitted to the service unless they tested negative for Covid-19; there were procedures in place to isolate new admissions for a further two weeks” from the report
Staff training
Inspectors found that staff understood how to use personal protective equipment and had infection control supervision and extra training.
“Training was robust, staff knew how to put on and take off PPE.” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
The home arranged regular testing for staff and residents. There were plans for managing a possible outbreak and for notifying the relevant organisations.
“The registered manager ensured regular testing was carried out on both staff and people living at the service.” from the report
Safer visiting
Visitors had to sign in, have their temperature taken and wash their hands. The home was also planning changes to make social distancing easier.
“All visitors to the service were required to sign in, have their temperatures taken and wash their hands.” from the report
Activities continued
The home continued activities while reducing infection risks. It offered one-to-one support and created a sensory room for people with anxiety.
“Staff limited activity groups to six people and wiped all items after use.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection control and testing arrangements are in place now for new residents, residents and staff?
- 02How would you isolate residents and separate floors if there was an infection outbreak?
- 03What visiting arrangements are currently available, and how are visitors kept safe?
- 04How do you make sure residents can continue activities and receive one-to-one support during infection outbreaks?
- 05When was the home's full inspection and rating last completed, since this inspection did not review all five areas?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the Covid-19 pandemic; the overall service was not rated and the previous Safe rating of Good was not reviewed in full. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 November 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 Kingfisher Lodge
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 June 2012.
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
25 live-in carers within about an hour of Bath and North East Somerset
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 £1,030 to £1,320 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She enabled mum to lead a high quality life in her own home until the very end and Lena and her family became close personal friends to me and my family.”
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.