CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kingly House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but staffing and management weaknesses affected safety and people's activities.
Inspectors visited without notice and spoke with people, a relative and staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, recruitment files and records about how the home was managed.
People were generally treated with kindness and felt safe. Staff supported people with food, healthcare, medicines and infection control. The home had trained regular staff, but frequent use of agency staff meant some workers did not know people's needs well enough.
Call bells were not always answered promptly. Some medicines records, care plans, risk monitoring and quality checks were incomplete or inaccurate. People did not always receive planned activities or regular care reviews.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe, responsive and well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while effective and caring were rated Good. This was a fall from the previous Outstanding rating published in 2017.
Kind and respectful care
People spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed patient and compassionate interactions, with attention to privacy and dignity.
“People were treated to kind and compassionate care and felt looked after well.” from the report
Good healthcare support
Regular staff knew people's health needs and helped them attend appointments. Health information and treatment were recorded and passed between shifts.
“They worked in partnership with other agencies such as GP's and other healthcare professionals” from the report
Food and nutrition
People said they had enough food and drink. The food was described as healthy and balanced, and people were supported to make choices.
“People told us they were provided with enough food and drink and said they were well nourished.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home investigated a choking incident and replaced equipment that was not preparing food safely.
“A new blender was purchased, and the risk of any further choking was reduced.” from the report
Staffing and call bells
seriousDaily agency staffing affected continuity of care and meant some people could not go out or take part in activities when they wanted. Call bells were not always answered promptly.
“Call bells were not always responded to promptly. On two occasions bells were ringing for over nine minutes.” from the report
Care records and risk monitoring
needs fixingSome care-plan information did not match across records, and some risks were not monitored consistently. This could make it harder for agency staff to provide the right support.
“documentation within them didn't always correspond, providing inaccurate information to the reader.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousStaff did not always sign medicine administration records. The home made an immediate change to improve stock records after inspectors raised the issue.
“Staff did not always sign the medicine administration records (MAR's) when administering medication to people.” from the report
Activities and care reviews
needs fixingPlanned rehabilitation activities did not always happen, and some people had not had regular reviews with their key worker. People and relatives were not always involved in care planning.
“Whilst planned activities were recorded in people's rehabilitation diaries these were not always followed as planned.” from the report
Quality management
needs fixingThere was no registered manager and formal quality checks were not yet in place or were not robust. Records of meetings were also not always available.
“There were no formal quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service at the time of our visit.” from the report
Privacy of records
needs fixingSome daily records were left where visitors and people using the home could access them.
“Some daily records had been left in the dining area and corridors and were accessible to visitors and people using the service.” from the report
- 01How many regular staff are now working at the home, and how often are agency staff used on each shift?
- 02How do you make sure agency staff understand each person's care needs, risks and rehabilitation plans?
- 03What checks are now in place to make sure call bells are answered promptly and medicine records are signed?
- 04How often are care plans and key-worker reviews completed, and how are people and relatives involved?
- 05Who is currently managing the home, and what quality audits are now being completed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the care-home premises. 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.
What inspectors found, August 2017
Rated Outstanding; inspectors found exceptional personalised rehabilitation and leadership, with safety, effectiveness and caring rated Good.
This was an unannounced inspection on 22 May 2017. Inspectors spoke with five people, a relative and staff. They reviewed care plans, medicines, recruitment, training, complaints and quality checks.
The home supported people with brain injuries and neurological disabilities. Inspectors found care was tailored to each person, with people supported to regain skills, become more independent and achieve difficult personal goals.
Safety, effectiveness and caring were rated Good. Responsive care and leadership were rated Outstanding. The overall rating was Outstanding, meaning inspectors found an exceptionally high standard across the service at the time of the inspection.
Personal rehabilitation
The home helped people work towards challenging goals, including walking, going out, cooking and communicating. Plans were developed with each person and adjusted to their pace.
“People achieved increasing levels of independence because of the care and support they received.” from the report
Individualised care
Staff knew people's needs, preferences and aims well. They adapted communication and support to suit each person.
“People consistently experienced care that met their unique needs.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff had a long induction and further training focused on the needs of people with brain injuries and neurological disabilities. Professional staff supported the wider team.
“People were supported by staff who received a thorough and effective 12 week induction into their role.” from the report
Strong leadership
Inspectors found an open, person-centred culture. Staff felt supported and were encouraged to suggest and test improvements.
“There was an open culture that encouraged staff to report concerns or mistakes.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely. Staff were trained and their competence was checked each year.
“People received the right medicines at the right time, including when they went out for a day or when they went on holidays.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are each person's rehabilitation goals agreed, recorded and reviewed now?
- 02How do you make sure staffing levels still support people's choices, activities and healthcare appointments?
- 03How are staff's medicines skills checked, including their use of medicines given only when needed?
- 04How do you adapt communication for someone who uses gestures, pictures, objects or their own form of communication?
- 05How are complaints recorded, investigated and shared with the person and their family?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 August 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 Kingly House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- September 2019Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from OutstandingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 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
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.