CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kings Park Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People's risks were assessed and reviewed, staffing levels met assessed needs, and medicines were given by trained staff. At the inspection, some people had COVID-19 and visiting restrictions were in place under current guidance.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had induction, training and ongoing support. People's eating, drinking and healthcare needs were met. Inspectors recommended improving some staff's knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw respectful interactions, privacy being protected, and people being offered choices and involved in decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and changing wishes. The home offered activities, supported relationships and interests, assessed communication needs and handled complaints in a timely way.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open, positive and person-centred culture. The management team was visible, staff felt listened to, and quality checks were described as multi-layered and effective.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Kings Park Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some staff needing stronger knowledge of mental capacity rules.
This was the first inspection since the home registered. It was unannounced and took place on 5 January 2023. Two inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
Inspectors rated all five areas Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. They found enough suitably recruited staff, safe medicines practice, good infection controls, personalised care, respectful support and effective management systems.
The inspectors made one recommendation. Some staff were not confident about the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, although the required authorisations and records were in place. A Good rating means the service was meeting the relevant standards at the time of this inspection, but it does not mean that care will be perfect for every person.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff with the right skills and safe recruitment checks. Medicines were administered by trained staff whose competence was checked regularly.
“People were supported by enough staff with the right skills and experience to meet people's assessed care and support needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and families spoke positively about the staff. Inspectors saw staff listening, offering choices and protecting people's privacy and dignity.
“We observed friendly, positive interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's lifestyles, interests and changing needs. The home offered social activities, support with relationships and specialist dementia facilities.
“People had person centred care plans that reflected their care needs and lifestyle choices, was reviewed regularly and responsive to people's changing needs and wishes.” from the report
Good management and oversight
The management team was visible and involved. Inspectors found systems for checking quality, learning from incidents and sharing information with staff.
“Quality assurance systems and processes were multi-layered, aligned with regulatory requirements and effective at improving quality of care.” from the report
Mental capacity knowledge
needs fixingSome staff were not confident about the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The inspectors recommended that the provider improve staff knowledge in this area.
“We recommend the provider ensures staff have a good working knowledge of the DoLs and key requirements of the MCA.” from the report
- 01What training have staff had, and what further training has been provided, on the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards?
- 02How will you make sure staff understand any restrictions or conditions applying to my relative?
- 03How would you meet my relative's specific communication needs, including any need for glasses, hearing aids, large print or picture information?
- 04What activities and one-to-one support would be available for my relative, including if they preferred to spend time in their room?
- 05How would you manage visiting and infection controls if there were a COVID-19 case or another infection outbreak?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 2023 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, May 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found well-managed risks and robust infection control, but this was not a full inspection.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 22 April 2022. Inspectors checked concerns about risk management and also looked at infection prevention and control.
Inspectors reviewed four people's risk records, spoke with five people, four relatives and six staff, and observed care. They found risks were assessed, recorded and reviewed regularly. They found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from the concern being checked.
The home was clean and infection control practices were described as robust. Staff used protective equipment appropriately, visiting arrangements followed government guidance, and people and relatives were happy with them.
The home was not given an overall quality rating. Safe was marked 'Inspected but not rated' because the inspection did not cover the whole Safe question or the other four questions.
Risk management
People had detailed risk assessments covering areas such as mobility, choking and skin integrity. These assessments were reviewed regularly.
“People had detailed and regularly reviewed risk assessments.” from the report
Follow-up after falls
When falls caused a head injury, inspectors found timely follow-up, including contact with health professionals and post-fall observations.
“Where people had experienced falls that resulted in a head injury there was appropriate and timely follow up” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that infection prevention arrangements, protective equipment, testing and visiting procedures were being managed appropriately.
“Infection prevention and control procedures and practices were robust and in line with current government guidance.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean, and inspectors observed suitable hygiene practices and a layout that promoted safety.
“A relative told us, "The home is clean." Our observations confirmed this.” from the report
Support for health needs
Staff worked with district nurses on health conditions and received support to become competent and confident in keeping people safe and well.
“Staff worked closely with local district nurses to help people manage health conditions such as wound management and diabetes.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01When will the next comprehensive inspection take place, and what ratings will be given for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led?
- 02How are my relative's individual risks assessed, recorded and reviewed?
- 03What happens if my relative falls or has another injury, and how are relatives informed?
- 04How will you manage infection risks, visiting and protective equipment if there is an outbreak?
- 05How will staff be supported to manage my relative's specific health conditions?
This was a targeted inspection of risk management and infection prevention and control; it did not assess the whole Safe question or the other four key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 May 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.
Every inspection of Kings Park Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 September 2021.
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
15 live-in carers within about an hour of Dorset
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 £1,040 to £1,340 a week. 11 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Even when things get a bit chaotic (as they sometimes do!), you’ve handled it with patience and a sense of humour — which is gold.”
“Nina was patient, focussed on my aunt's physical well-being, and unfazed by what at the time was a new and uncertain situation”
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.