CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kingly Croft
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were managed safely, and infection control arrangements were in place. They identified a risk from having one staff member alone at night, but the provider immediately introduced an electronic system linking the home to the neighbouring service.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before care began. Staff had training for complex needs, nutrition was monitored where necessary, and staff worked with healthcare professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and compassionate. Inspectors saw staff supporting people warmly, respectfully and sensitively, while promoting privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and people and relatives were involved in reviews. Inspectors noted that the home's accessible car was no longer available at the time, but a new car was purchased immediately after the inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive, person-centred culture and approachable management. Audits, staff meetings, surveys and external reviews were used to monitor quality and address shortfalls.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found personalised, kind and safe care, with short-term concerns about night staffing, transport and end-of-life planning.
This was an unannounced inspection on 24 September 2021. One inspector, a pharmacist and an Expert by Experience spoke with two people, four relatives and nine staff. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management documents.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found personalised care, kind staff, safe medicines management, suitable staffing during the day and good support from health professionals.
The previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, published in September 2019. Safe, Responsive and Well-led improved to Good, while Effective and Caring remained Good. Inspectors identified some issues during this visit, but the provider took immediate action on the night staffing risk and confirmed that a new car had been purchased.
Personalised care
People and relatives said care was tailored to individual needs and preferences. Staff knew people's routines, histories and what mattered to them.
“People received personalised safe care.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw warm and sensitive interactions. Staff supported people with dignity and encouraged them to remain as independent as possible.
“We saw staff spoke to people in a warm, positive manner and offered support in a relaxed and sensitive way.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and their competence was checked. Medicines records, including records for controlled drugs, were managed safely.
“People were given medicines in line with their care plans and medicines administration was recorded accurately.” from the report
Good management oversight
The provider and manager used audits and an external review to monitor the home. Shortfalls found during the inspection were acted on promptly.
“The provider and registered manager closely monitored the quality of the service.” from the report
One staff member alone at night
seriousOne staff member worked alone overnight. Inspectors said this created a risk if there was a serious incident or the staff member became unable to call for help. A linked electronic check-in system was introduced immediately after the inspection.
“There was only one member of staff deployed at night.” from the report
Access to the wider community
needs fixingThe accessible car previously available to people was not in use, reducing access to the wider community at the time of the visit. The provider later confirmed that a new car had been purchased.
“This meant people did not have access to the wider community as they once did.” from the report
End-of-life wishes
needs fixingPeople's wishes about end-of-life care had not yet been discussed. The manager recognised that this needed further exploration during future care reviews.
“People's wishes at the end of their life had yet to be explored though there was no one requiring end of life care at the time of our visit.” from the report
- 01How is the new electronic night-time check-in system used, and what happens if the staff member does not respond?
- 02How many staff are normally on duty during the day and night, and is the current recruitment drive complete?
- 03How is the new accessible car being used to support people's access to the wider community?
- 04When and how will each person's end-of-life wishes be discussed and recorded?
- 05How will the home continue to involve people and relatives in care reviews and decisions about the service?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control, with care, medicines, staffing, recruitment and management records reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 October 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, September 2019
Kingly Croft was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and safe medicines, but staffing, care records and management needed improvement.
Inspectors visited without warning on 25 and 26 July 2019. They spoke with people living at the home, managers and staff. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, training records, meeting records and quality checks.
The home supports up to six adults with acquired brain injuries and neurological conditions. Inspectors found kind and respectful staff, suitable training, good support from health professionals and safe medicines management.
However, staffing was not consistent. Agency staff did not always know people well, and staff were sometimes moved to the sister service. This meant people could miss planned support and activities. Some care records also contained conflicting information.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Effective and Caring were rated Good. The previous overall rating was Outstanding, published in August 2017.
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and patient. Inspectors saw staff supporting people's choices, privacy, dignity and independence.
“People told us the staff team were kind and caring and they looked after them well.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were given regularly and records were accurate. Staff had medicines training and their competence was checked.
“Medicines and the medicine administration records were accurate, and regularly checked for any mistakes.” from the report
Specialist support
The home had staff with specialist skills, including occupational therapy, physiotherapy and speech and language therapy. People's needs and expected outcomes were assessed.
“The provider had recruited staff with specialist skills to meet people's individual needs.” from the report
Safe environment and risk management
Risks were assessed and managed. Environmental and equipment checks were completed, and emergency evacuation plans were in place.
“Risks associated with people's care and support had been assessed, monitored and managed.” from the report
Conflicting care records
needs fixingSome care plan documents gave different instructions about a person's equipment and personal post. This could mislead agency staff and affect the support provided.
“Comprehensive care plans were in place, providing staff with the information they needed to support people with their needs.” from the report
Activities not always completed
needs fixingPlanned activities in rehabilitation diaries were not always carried out. People reported limited choice and wanted more varied activities.
“Whilst planned activities were recorded in people's rehabilitation diary's, these were not always carried out.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
needs fixingThe home did not have fully formalised or robust monitoring systems. Care plans had not been audited, and records of some meetings were not always available.
“Whilst monitoring systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service, these were not fully formalised or robust.” from the report
No registered manager at the visit
needs fixingThe home did not have a registered manager when inspectors visited. The operations manager was acting as manager, and a later offer and acceptance of the registered manager role was reported after the inspection.
“At the time of our visit the service was without a registered manager and the providers operations manager was acting as the manager.” from the report
- 01How many regular staff are now working at the home, and how often are agency staff used?
- 02How do you make sure agency staff understand each person's current care plan, equipment instructions and risks?
- 03What system is now used to check that care plans are accurate and that different documents do not conflict?
- 04What activities are now available, and how do you make sure planned rehabilitation and social activities take place?
- 05Has a registered manager now been appointed, and how are quality checks and meeting records being reviewed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; inspectors reviewed one person's care records and a range of other care and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 September 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 Kingly Croft
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2019Requires improvementdown from OutstandingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 October 2013.
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 Leicestershire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
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.