CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kingsbury House Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection control measures, including testing, visiting arrangements, safe admissions and outbreak management. They were only somewhat assured about PPE use and the safety of the premises' layout and hygiene practices.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements, but some PPE and bin arrangements needed improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 23 February 2022. It was a targeted visit about infection control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors found good practice in staff training, COVID-19 testing and vaccination. They were assured about most of the home's infection control arrangements, including safe admissions, visiting and managing outbreaks.
The home was not given an overall rating or a Safe rating. Inspectors were only somewhat assured that PPE was being used safely and that the layout and hygiene practices supported safety. They also found that suitable clinical waste bins were not available.
Staff training
Staff had training in infection prevention and control, food hygiene, COVID-19, hand washing and using protective equipment.
“Staff had been trained in infection prevention and control, food hygiene and COVID-19.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
There was regular COVID-19 testing for staff and residents. The report says staff and residents had received their vaccines and booster.
“A regular programme of testing for COVID-19 was in place for staff and people who lived in the service.” from the report
Clinical waste bins
needs fixingPPE was being used, but there were no clinical waste bins for disposal. The home was advised to provide these and replace bathroom and toilet bins with working pedal bins.
“PPE was being used, however, there were no clinical waste bins provided to dispose of this.” from the report
PPE and hygiene arrangements
minorInspectors were only somewhat assured that PPE was being used effectively and safely, and that the layout and hygiene practices promoted safety.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
- 01Have you now provided clinical waste bins for used PPE?
- 02Have all bathroom and toilet bins been replaced with working pedal bins?
- 03How do you check that staff use PPE effectively and safely?
- 04What improvements raised previously by the CCG are still outstanding?
- 05How are current staffing pressures affecting residents' care?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 March 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, May 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and clear improvements, with some smaller issues needing attention.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and the management team. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, staff training, recruitment, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable training, respectful care and systems to monitor quality and safety.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement in April 2017, with a breach about quality checks. Inspectors found that breach had been met and that the service had improved in all areas.
Protection from harm
The home had safeguarding procedures, trained staff and took action when concerns arose. Inspectors found that people were protected as far as possible from abuse and avoidable harm.
“People were protected as far as possible from abuse and avoidable harm and where safeguarding incidents had occurred, immediate action was taken to protect people.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and adapted how they spoke with them. Inspectors saw respectful interactions and found that privacy, dignity and independence were promoted.
“Staff were kind and caring, they knew people well, and they supported people in a dignified and respectful way.” from the report
Improved staffing
A waking night staff member had been introduced since the previous inspection. Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient on the day and staff felt the change was positive.
“Since our last inspection, improvements had been made to the deployment of staff.” from the report
Stronger management checks
The home had regular checks on areas such as cleanliness, safety and medicines. Action plans were used when improvements were needed.
“Systems and processes to check on quality and safety included daily, weekly and monthly monitoring of housekeeping and infection control, health and safety and medicines management.” from the report
Kitchen access
needs fixingPeople did not use the kitchen, but there was no clear explanation for this. The management team agreed to review the practice and assess people's individual needs.
“However, we were aware that people did not use the kitchen but there was no clear rationale as to why this was.” from the report
As-needed medicine information
needs fixingOne person had medicine to take when required, but staff did not have a protocol explaining how it should be used. The manager agreed to address this immediately.
“We found one exception to this where a person, who had medicines prescribed to be taken as required, did not have a protocol in place.” from the report
CCTV notices
minorCCTV was used in some communal areas for safety, but notices explaining this were not displayed in every area. The management team said this would be addressed immediately.
“We saw some notices were in place advising people that CCTV was in operation but not in all areas.” from the report
Healthy food choices
minorInspectors noted comments about a lack of fruit and vegetables. The management team agreed to encourage healthier eating and provide more fresh fruit and vegetables.
“We noted and a relative commented on a lack of fruit and vegetables available.” from the report
Activities on the inspection day
needs fixingSome activities were offered during the week, but people were not offered a choice of activity on the day inspectors visited. Staff interaction was positive but generally brief.
“On the day of our inspection, people were not offered any choice of activity.” from the report
- 01What action was taken to put the missing as-needed medicine protocol in place, and how is it checked now?
- 02Can residents use the kitchen, and how are restrictions on kitchen access decided for each person?
- 03Where is CCTV used, and how are residents and visitors told about it?
- 04What fresh fruit and vegetables are now available, and how are residents supported to make healthier food choices?
- 05What activities are currently offered, and how do residents choose activities or receive individual time with staff?
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection that looked at the overall service and rated all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 May 2018 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 Kingsbury House Limited
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 June 2016.
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
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottingham
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. 73 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.