CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kingsleigh
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was following safe infection prevention and control procedures. They found suitable arrangements for PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Kingsleigh was rated Good overall; inspectors found strong infection-control arrangements, but Safe was inspected and not rated.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 1 December 2020. It was carried out because of a coronavirus outbreak and focused on infection prevention and control.
Inspectors found that staff used PPE correctly and received training. The home was clean, used extra cleaning for high-touch areas, carried out infection-control audits and arranged regular COVID-19 testing for staff and residents.
Staff were generally kept to one area to reduce the risk of infection spreading. Families could not visit inside at the time because of the outbreak, although exceptions were made for people receiving end of life care. The overall service rating was Good, but Safe was inspected and not rated.
Infection control
The home had measures to reduce infection risks, including PPE training, extra cleaning and regular infection-control audits.
“The service was clean and hygienic. Additional cleaning schedules had been implemented since the beginning of the pandemic” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
Staff and residents had access to regular COVID-19 testing. The home also had arrangements for isolating people with symptoms or positive results.
“Staff accessed weekly Covid testing. If staff returned positive test results or had Covid symptoms, they did not return to work” from the report
Support for families
Although inside visits were stopped during the outbreak, staff helped people keep in touch with families by phone and video.
“Staff supported other people to maintain contact with their families through phone calls and video meetings.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing visits, and what happens if there is an infection outbreak?
- 02How often are staff and residents tested when there is a suspected or confirmed infection?
- 03How do you make sure staff remain in one area where possible and avoid unnecessary cross-infection?
- 04How are infection-control audits carried out, and what happens if an audit finds a problem?
- 05How will you help my relative keep in contact with family if visits inside the home are restricted?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a coronavirus outbreak; the other four key questions were not inspected or rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 December 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, August 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found that the home had improved substantially, with safe, kind and personalised care after serious previous concerns.
This was an unannounced re-inspection on 13 June 2018. Inspectors spoke with 19 people living at the home, four relatives and eight staff. They observed care and mealtimes, and reviewed care plans, staff records, medicines records, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safer medicines practices, better training, clean surroundings and improved support for people's choices and needs.
This was a significant improvement from the comprehensive inspection in October 2017, when the home was rated Requires Improvement overall and Inadequate for being well-led. At that time, inspectors had concerns about staffing, complaints, personalised care and management. This inspection found that the required improvements had been made.
Some work was still continuing. Care plans were being updated and some did not yet fully record the personalised care being provided. Reviews of 'as needed' medicines and records about people's final wishes were also still in progress.
Staffing and safety
Staffing levels had improved and inspectors found people were supported safely and promptly. Staff understood safeguarding and individual risks.
“This inspection found that staffing levels were now sufficient to support people safely” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People had positive relationships with staff. Inspectors saw compassion, respect for privacy and support for people's choices and independence.
“Care was provided with compassion and kindness.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people well and adapted care to their routines, preferences and changing needs. Activities were varied and linked to people's interests.
“People experienced a much more person-centred approach to care and staff were responsive to people's changing needs.” from the report
Improved leadership
The new management team had created a more open culture. People, relatives and staff were involved in decisions and their feedback was acted on.
“The new management team had been successful in turning the service around” from the report
Food and healthcare support
People had choices about meals and received support with nutrition and hydration. Staff worked with other healthcare professionals when people needed specialist help.
“People were supported to maintain adequate levels of nutrition and hydration and mealtimes were a sociable occasion that brought people together.” from the report
Care records still being updated
needs fixingSome care plans did not yet fully reflect the personalised care inspectors saw. The provider had an improvement plan to complete this work.
“Care plans were still in the process of being reviewed and updated and some did not yet fully reflect the personalised support that was being provided.” from the report
Some medicines guidance under review
minorGuidance for 'as needed' medicines was being reviewed and updated. Families should ask how this work has been completed since the inspection.
“Protocols were in place to support the administration of 'as needed' (or PRN) medicines and these were in the process of being reviewed and updated.” from the report
End of life records not finished
minorNo one was receiving end of life care during the inspection. Advance care planning was underway, and inspectors said they would follow up on the records.
“The manager informed us that advanced care planning was underway and that staff were in the process of gathering this information.” from the report
- 01How many care staff are currently working on each shift, and how do you respond if people's needs change?
- 02When will every person's care plan be fully updated to reflect their personalised care and preferences?
- 03How are 'as needed' medicines authorised, reviewed and recorded now?
- 04How do you record and review each person's wishes about end of life care?
- 05How can relatives raise a concern, and how will we be told what action has been taken?
This was an unannounced re-inspection of the whole service, covering accommodation and care, after the previous inspection found serious concerns about leadership, staffing, complaints and personalised care. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 August 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 Kingsleigh
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018Goodup from Requires improvement
- June 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 January 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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.