CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kingsfield Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. Risks, accidents, medicines, staffing and infection control were monitored, although more detail was needed for some medicines given only when needed.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found robust systems for checking quality and identifying risks. People were consulted about activities and menus, but residents and relatives had not always been involved in care plan reviews.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and the home was well-led, with some medicines and care planning records still being improved.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 14 December 2021. It followed concerns about staffing and how risks were managed. One inspector spoke with three people and 11 staff, and reviewed records and information from other professionals.
Inspectors found people felt safe. Staffing numbers and staff deployment had recently improved. Medicines were stored and given safely, infection control was followed, and accidents and risks were reviewed. However, instructions for some medicines given only when needed needed more detail.
The home was rated Good overall, with Safe and Well-led both rated Good. The other three areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward. The overall rating remained Good, as it had been at the previous inspection published in April 2020.
Improved staffing
Staffing numbers had increased and staff were deployed more effectively. Inspectors found this gave people needing support more supervision.
“Staffing numbers had recently increased, and staff deployment had improved to ensure increased support and supervision for people who required it.” from the report
Medicines handled safely
People received medicines safely and at the right time. Storage, staff training and electronic records were checked.
“People told us they received their medicines at the right time and in a safe way, Staff had received medicine training and had their competency assessed at least annually.” from the report
Strong quality checks
The provider had systems to monitor quality, identify risks and track improvements. Staff were involved in these checks.
“There were comprehensive and robust systems and processes in place to monitor quality performance and identify risk.” from the report
Instructions for some medicines
needs fixingInstructions for medicines prescribed only when needed did not always say clearly when they should be given. The provider agreed to review them.
“Where medicines were prescribed on an 'as required basis', more detail was required about when they should given so that staff administered this in a consistent way.” from the report
Care plan involvement
needs fixingResidents and relatives had not always been involved in care plan reviews. The provider said this was being corrected through its improvement plan.
“People and their relatives had not always been involved in care plan reviews, however this was being rectified as part of the provider's service improvement plan.” from the report
New observation process
minorA new process for checking that care was dignified and person-centred had not yet been fully put into practice when inspectors visited.
“This process were new and had not been fully implemented at the time of our inspection.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure instructions for medicines given only when needed are clear and followed consistently?
- 02How are residents and relatives included in care plan reviews now?
- 03What staffing numbers and staff deployment are in place at busy times, including mealtimes?
- 04Has the manager's application for CQC registration been completed, and who is currently responsible for running the home?
- 05How do you check that care is delivered in a dignified and person-centred way?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 January 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, February 2021
Kingsfield Court Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 21 January 2021. It checked infection prevention and control because the home had been identified as a designated setting for people discharged from hospital with COVID-19.
Inspectors found that visitors were welcomed safely, visits took place in a separate garden room, and people could use Skype to stay in contact with relatives when visits were not possible.
The home had enough protective equipment, regular COVID-19 testing, cleaning schedules and plans for people who needed to isolate. A separate COVID-19 positive unit was also arranged.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all five areas of care, so it does not provide an overall quality rating.
Safe visiting
Visitors were given information about infection control rules. Visits took place in a separate garden room with a screen divider and its own outdoor entrance.
“Visits took place in a converted a garden room, with a separate outdoor entrance.” from the report
Keeping in touch
When visits were not possible, staff supported people to keep contact with relatives and friends using Skype.
“If people were unable to have visitors, for example, if they were isolating or unwell, the service's activities team facilitated Skype calls for them” from the report
Protective equipment and testing
The home had enough protective equipment, staff were trained to use it, and people and staff were tested regularly for COVID-19.
“The service was well-supplied with PPE (personal protective equipment) and staff had the training they needed to use and dispose of PPE safely.” from the report
Isolation arrangements
The home had space and plans to reduce contact between people who might have COVID-19 and others. A separate second-floor unit was prepared for people who tested positive.
“The second floor was designated a COVID-19 positive unit with the required safety measures in place.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the premises clean and well ventilated, with cleaning products and schedules in place.
“The premises were clean and well-ventilated.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently welcomed and how are visits arranged if someone is isolating?
- 02How often are people living here and staff tested for COVID-19 now?
- 03What happens if my relative tests positive or develops symptoms?
- 04Is the separate COVID-19 positive unit still available, and would it have separate staff?
- 05How are cleaning, ventilation and protective equipment checked and monitored?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the home was inspected but not rated and the other areas of care were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 February 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.
Every inspection of Kingsfield Court Care Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 March 2019.
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.