CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kingsfield Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some pre-employment checks were missing, and people could access cleaning products and other potentially harmful items. Some windows also presented a hazard. Medicines, staffing levels and safeguarding arrangements were otherwise found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care records reflected their current requirements. People received support with food, drink and healthcare, and staff had appropriate training and support.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. People and relatives were involved in decisions, and staff supported independence, privacy and individual preferences.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and communication needs were assessed. People had access to activities and support to maintain relationships, although this rating fell from Outstanding because COVID-19 restrictions limited the evidence available.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff found management visible, approachable and supportive. However, monitoring systems had not identified or acted on some environmental risks quickly enough.
What inspectors found, December 2021
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but safety checks and recruitment needed improvement.
Inspectors visited on 9 and 10 November 2021. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, rotas and safety records, and looked around the building.
People generally said they felt safe and were treated kindly. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, good support with food and healthcare, personalised care and a good range of activities.
The Safe rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. Some recruitment checks were missing, and people could access potentially dangerous items, including cleaning products. Some windows also needed restricting. The home acted during and immediately after the inspection to address these risks.
The overall rating remained Good. Effective, Caring and Well-led stayed Good. Responsive fell from Outstanding to Good because there was less evidence available during COVID-19 restrictions, although inspectors said people's needs were still being met.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm and friendly interactions. People and relatives said staff treated them with kindness and respect.
“Staff treated people with care, patience and kindness.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were recorded and given as prescribed. Staff had relevant training and their competence was checked.
“Medicines were administered by staff who had completed relevant training to administer them safely.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. Staff supported people to make choices and maintain their independence.
“People received person centre care and support.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home had an activities coordinator and a varied programme. People were supported to keep in touch with relatives and important visitors.
“People were supported to follow their interests and take part in a range of activities.” from the report
Enough staff
Rotas and feedback indicated there were enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe.
“There were enough staff employed.” from the report
Missing recruitment checks
seriousSome files did not show checks with previous employers in health and social care or other required pre-employment checks. The report says there was no evidence anyone had been harmed.
“Some checks with previous employers in health and social care and other pre-employment checks had not been made in the recruitment files we considered.” from the report
Environmental hazards
seriousPeople could access some cleaning products and other items that could cause harm. Some windows also needed restricting.
“People could access some items and cleaning materials that could be harmful to themselves and others.” from the report
Weak safety monitoring
needs fixingThe home's checks had not identified or escalated some environmental concerns quickly enough. The provider was asked to review its auditing and checking systems.
“The effectiveness of the provider's systems to monitor and oversee the quality of the service was variable.” from the report
Professional visitor infection controls
needs fixingThe home needed stronger processes for professional visitors to help prevent infection spread. This was addressed during the inspection.
“The provider needed to implement more robust processes when professional visitors visited the home.” from the report
- 01Have all missing recruitment checks, including checks with previous employers, now been completed?
- 02How are cleaning products and other potentially dangerous items secured now?
- 03What changes have been made to window safety and environmental checks?
- 04How do you now monitor and escalate safety concerns so that problems are acted on promptly?
- 05What infection control steps must professional visitors follow when they come to the home?
This was an announced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control measures because of COVID-19; the visit took place over 9 and 10 November 2021. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 December 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.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and effective care, with exceptionally responsive support.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, staff and visiting professionals. They observed daily care, checked the building and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment, training and quality records.
The home was rated Good overall. It was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. Responsive was rated Outstanding, which means inspectors found care was especially well tailored to people's individual needs, choices and goals.
People told inspectors they felt safe and were positive about the care. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, clean premises, kind interactions, good support with food and healthcare, and strong work with families and other professionals.
Personalised support
Care was planned around people's individual goals, abilities and choices. Staff supported people to regain skills and have more control in their lives.
“Care plans were focused upon a person's individual needs including their goals, aspirations and abilities.” from the report
Relationships and activities
The home helped people maintain important relationships and take part in activities suited to their interests. It also supported people to stay connected with family overseas.
“Staff made sure people were supported to maintain and renew their important relationships with family, friends and the wider community.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm, patient interactions. Staff respected privacy, used people's preferred names and encouraged independence.
“Staff were kind and compassionate and had formed positive relationships with people and knew them well.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough appropriately trained staff, and medicines were managed through checks, training and an electronic administration system.
“The provider had safe recruitment systems and processes.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked closely with health and social care professionals. This helped people receive timely support and manage complex conditions.
“Professionals we spoke with confirmed the service worked well with them, was "proactive" and monitored people's conditions and behaviours in detail.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and review my relative's individual goals, abilities, interests and communication needs?
- 02How would you support my relative to maintain relationships with family, friends and the wider community?
- 03What activities and quieter social spaces would be available to match my relative's preferences?
- 04How do you make sure medicines are given safely and that any missed or delayed doses are followed up?
- 05How would you involve my relative, our family and other professionals in decisions about care and treatment?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and both the premises and care provided; the previous overall rating was Good, published on 4 August 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 February 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.
Every inspection of Kingsfield Residential Care Home
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Kingsfield Residential Care Home →
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Kingsfield Residential Care Home →
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 July 2012.
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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Westmorland and Furness
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 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.