CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Kingsland House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe care and positive management, while noting there was not yet a registered manager.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 17 and 18 January 2023. It was prompted partly by concerns about staffing levels and care delivery. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from these concerns.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, safe medicines management and suitable infection control. People said they felt safe and were treated with dignity and compassion.
There were systems to monitor quality, keep records and follow up improvements. A new manager was in post but had not yet registered with the CQC. The overall rating stayed Good because the other key question ratings carried over from the previous inspection, which was published in May 2022.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs consistently. There was also a core team who knew people well.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs consistently and keep people safe.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were given by trained staff, records were completed properly and checks were in place to identify errors or omissions.
“Medicine Administration Records (MARs) were completed in line with best practice and processes were in place to identify and act upon any errors or omissions.” from the report
Good oversight
The home had quality checks and followed up actions arising from audits. Records were described as accurate, complete and detailed.
“Quality audits were undertaken and actions arising were followed up.” from the report
Kind, person-centred care
Inspectors found a positive culture focused on people's needs, wishes and quality of life.
“The culture of the service focused on providing person centred care and support to people.” from the report
Safe visiting
People could see friends and relatives at times that suited them, with procedures to support safe visits.
“People were able to see their friends and relatives at a time that suited them and were supported by staff to do so.” from the report
Manager not yet registered
minorThere was no registered manager at the inspection. A new manager was in post and was due to register with the CQC.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager.” from the report
- 01What progress has been made with the new manager's CQC registration?
- 02How are you maintaining enough staff to meet people's needs consistently?
- 03What progress has been made with recruiting more permanent staff?
- 04How are relatives and residents involved in deciding and checking improvements?
- 05What actions from recent quality audits are still being followed up?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other ratings carried over from the previous inspection published on 5 May 2022. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 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
Kingsland House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and better leadership, with no breaches identified.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 8 April 2022. One inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and reviewed records including eight care plans.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. People said they felt safe and treated with kindness. Inspectors found medicines, risk assessments, staffing arrangements, infection control and safeguarding systems were suitable.
Inspectors found that leadership had improved since the previous inspection. Staff morale, communication and teamwork were better, and quality checks were being used to monitor and improve care.
The inspection did not assess Effective, Caring or Responsive. Those ratings were carried forward from earlier comprehensive inspections, so the overall Good rating is not based on a fresh review of all five areas.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood how to recognise and report abuse.
“People said they felt safe and they had no concerns around safety.” from the report
Safe medicines systems
Staff were trained and checked as competent. Medicine records, storage, stock checks and audits were found to be accurate and suitable.
“We saw these were accurate.” from the report
Good risk management
Care plans contained specific guidance for risks such as falls and choking. Fire safety and equipment checks were also in place.
“Their care plans contained comprehensive and specific details for staff on how to manage these risks.” from the report
Kind relationships
People and relatives described kind care, and inspectors saw friendly relationships between people and staff.
“People were happy with the care they received, felt relaxed with staff and told us they were treated with kindness.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had introduced changes to improve openness, communication and staff morale. Inspectors found stronger teamwork and regular quality checks.
“We saw that improvements had been made and managers at the service had implemented new systems and initiatives to improve transparency, communication and the morale of staff.” from the report
Previous staffing pressure
minorA relative said staffing had been difficult during the pandemic. Inspectors found there was not a dangerous staffing level at the time, but it is worth asking how the home manages shortages now.
“I know they've struggled with staffing, because of the pandemic, but I've never felt there was a dangerous level of staff.” from the report
Past culture and morale concerns
minorThe previous inspection had identified concerns about the culture of the home and staff wellbeing. Inspectors said improvements had since been made and the Well-led rating rose to Good.
“At the last inspection, we identified issues in respect to the culture of the service and the wellbeing and morale of staff.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure staffing levels remain safe when staff are off sick or on leave?
- 02How will you assess and review my relative's risks, such as falls, choking or other health needs?
- 03What changes have been made to staff communication and morale since the previous inspection?
- 04How will my relative and our family be involved in care planning, activities and food choices?
- 05What were the previous ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, and when will these areas next be reviewed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 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 Kingsland House
10 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2022GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2021Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2017Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 2011.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,020 to £1,170 a week. 23 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.