CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kingsbridge Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Kingsbridge Road was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection control practice.
Inspectors visited the home on 29 October 2020. This was an announced thematic review during the coronavirus pandemic. It focused on infection prevention and control in care homes.
Inspectors found examples of good practice. Staff recorded people's temperatures electronically, tested people and staff for COVID-19, and used designated areas for self-isolation and family visits when safe.
The home was judged to be meeting the infection control checks inspectors made, including the use of PPE, testing, social distancing, hygiene and its infection control policy. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Temperature monitoring
Staff used mobile devices to record temperatures. Senior staff were alerted when readings suggested a possible fever.
“Staff used electronic systems to log people's temperatures using mobile devices.” from the report
Testing arrangements
People using the service and staff were routinely tested for COVID-19. Staff adapted testing for people who had positive behavioural support plans.
“People using the service were routinely tested for COVID-19 as were staff members.” from the report
Self-isolation and visits
The home had designated areas for people to self-isolate when they arrived and for family visits when these could take place safely.
“The service used designated areas of the building to support people to self isolate when first coming into the service” from the report
Personal protective equipment
Inspectors were assured that PPE was being used effectively and safely.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are temperature alerts reviewed and acted on now?
- 02How do you arrange COVID-19 or other infection testing for people who find testing difficult?
- 03What arrangements are currently used for self-isolation when someone first arrives?
- 04How can families visit safely now, and what restrictions apply?
- 05Which areas of care and service quality were not covered by this focused inspection?
This was an announced thematic review focused on infection prevention and control; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 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.
What inspectors found, November 2017
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found medicines checks and some safety oversight needed improvement.
Inspectors visited on 27 and 28 September 2017. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people using the home, relatives, staff and other professionals. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home supported up to 11 people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum conditions. Inspectors found kind care, detailed support plans and activities that reflected people's choices. Staff supported people with health appointments, communication and decisions about their care.
The Safe rating was Requires Improvement. The inspection was brought forward after several medicines errors were reported. Some medicines checks were not recorded or effective enough to find mistakes quickly. The building was also in poor condition, although inspectors found no evidence that it was unsafe.
The other four areas were rated Good: Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating was Good. This means the home was meeting the required standard overall, but safety improvements were still needed.
Personalised support
Support plans described people's goals, routines, communication and preferred activities. Reviews were more frequent when people's needs or placements were less stable.
“Support plans were detailed and person centred with clear outcomes” from the report
Respectful care
Inspectors observed friendly and respectful interactions. People had keyworkers and were supported to communicate and take part in decisions.
“We noted that on several occasions people who used the service asked members of staff to come into the room when speaking to Inspectors in order to provide support and reassurance.” from the report
Managing complex needs
The home had risk plans for missing people and behaviour that could challenge. It worked with care managers and other professionals to support people while protecting their rights.
“We saw that the provider had clear risk assessments for addressing these situations, and had missing persons procedures, which were agreed with people's care managers.” from the report
Medicines checks
seriousThere had been several medicines errors. Some checks were not recorded, and gaps in medicines records were not identified promptly.
“We were not satisfied that the measures the provider had put in place were sufficient to identify an error promptly once it had occurred.” from the report
Building condition
needs fixingThe building was in very poor condition, with missing paint and plaster, broken kitchen cabinets, missing bathroom tiles and a shower out of order. The provider was working with the landlord on repairs.
“The building was in very poor condition, but there was no evidence that it was unsafe and was kept in a clean condition.” from the report
Follow-up of safety checks
needs fixingSome high fridge and water temperatures were not followed up promptly or checked regularly by managers. The report also noted outstanding electrical maintenance issues.
“We found that sometimes health and safety checks were not overseen in a way which meant that issues of concern could be addressed promptly” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicines checks since the reported errors, and how do managers now confirm that every check has been completed?
- 02How are missing or incorrect medicines records identified and acted on now?
- 03Which repairs to the building have been completed since the inspection, including the shower, bathroom tiles, walls and kitchen cabinets?
- 04How are high fridge and water temperatures recorded, escalated and followed up?
- 05How will the new audit system show whether safety and care have improved?
This was a planned inspection covering all five questions, brought forward because of reported medicines errors; the report also says the previous comprehensive inspection was in May 2016 and a focused inspection took place in November 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 November 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 Kingsbridge Road
3 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvement
- July 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 November 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Kensington and Chelsea
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 £1,270 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“The interaction she gives my mother is incredible, singing, dancing, taking her to groups, on plenty of walks which mum always loves.”
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.