CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Kingsley Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People received safe care, risks were assessed, the environment and equipment were maintained, and infection control procedures were followed. Medicines were given as prescribed, although some medicines care plans were incomplete at the time of inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says there were no identified concerns, so the previous comprehensive inspection rating was used.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says there were no identified concerns, so the previous comprehensive inspection rating was used.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people were supported with communication, activities, relationships and end of life care. Some care plans lacked details, and some relatives said visiting appointment times were limited.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and staff were described as approachable and supportive. Quality checks, action plans, meetings and feedback systems were used to improve the service.
What inspectors found, August 2021
Kingsley Court Care Home is rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and visiting arrangements needing improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 13 July 2021. Inspectors looked at Safe, Responsive and Well-led, with particular attention to medicines after a reported incident. They also considered infection control. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were well cared for, staff were kind and respectful, risks were assessed, medicines were given as prescribed, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. The home also had systems for handling complaints, learning from incidents and monitoring quality.
Some medicines care plans and other care plans did not always contain all the needed details. A small number of people sometimes waited for care during busy periods, and some relatives found visiting appointments difficult to arrange outside working hours. The manager said changes would be made, and the report says some medicine records and monitoring systems were improved after the inspection. The overall rating remained Good, as it had been at the previous inspection published in February 2018.
Personalised care
People were involved in planning their care. Staff knew people well, offered choices and supported independence.
“People received personalised care which reflected their needs and preferences.” from the report
Safe care
Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, equipment and the building were checked, and people received medicines as prescribed.
“People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Kind relationships
People and relatives spoke positively about staff, who were described as kind, caring and respectful.
“They had good relationships with the staff who they felt were kind, caring and respectful.” from the report
Activities and inclusion
The home offered planned and individual activities, supported contact with families, and catered for different cultures and religions.
“There was a range of different planned activities and special events.” from the report
Quality oversight
The home used audits, checks, action plans and feedback to monitor and improve care.
“The provider had effective systems for monitoring and improving the quality of the service.” from the report
Care plan detail
needs fixingSome care plans lacked details about individual needs and how staff should meet them. Staff knew people's needs, and the manager said the plans would be reviewed.
“We identified some care plans lacked details about specific individual needs and how these should be met.” from the report
Waiting at busy times
minorA small number of people said they sometimes waited for care during busy periods. Most people said their needs were met promptly and call bells were answered quickly.
“A small number of people told us they sometimes had to wait for care during busy times of the day.” from the report
Limited visiting appointments
minorSome relatives found pre-booked visiting appointments difficult because they worked and wanted more opportunities outside working hours.
“Some relatives told us this could be difficult because they worked and would like to have more opportunities to visit outside of their work times, but the appointment slots were limited.” from the report
- 01Have all medicines care plans been completed, including plans for time-sensitive, anti-seizure and anticipatory medicines?
- 02How are medicine records and patch application records checked now?
- 03Have the missing details in individual care plans been added and reviewed?
- 04How do you make sure people do not wait too long for care during busy periods?
- 05Are visiting appointments now available outside normal working hours?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 August 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 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with a few minor areas needing attention.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 4 and 5 January 2018. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They also observed care and mealtimes and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files, complaints and safety records.
The home was rated Good overall and in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, good infection control and suitable checks on risks and equipment.
People received personalised care and were treated kindly and respectfully. Care plans were detailed and kept up to date. Activities were varied, complaints were dealt with, and the manager used audits and staff discussions to improve the service. The home was still rated Good, as it had been at the previous inspection in November 2015.
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found sufficient nursing and care staff and saw staff respond promptly without rushing people. Recruitment checks were in place to help ensure suitable staff were employed.
“We observed that there were sufficient numbers of nursing and care staff to meet the needs of those living at the home.” from the report
Medicines were managed safely
Medicines were stored securely and records checked showed no gaps in administration. Staff followed suitable arrangements for controlled drugs, medicines given when needed and medicines given covertly.
“People received their medicines as prescribed. We found no gaps in the recording of medicines administered on the MAR charts we viewed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people's routines and communication needs. Inspectors saw staff protect privacy and dignity, offer choices and provide unhurried support.
“We observed gentle, cheerful and empathetic care throughout our inspection, with staff providing appropriate and attentive care to people.” from the report
Personalised activities and care
Care plans included people's preferences, life histories and routines. Activities were varied, encouraged participation and included one-to-one options.
“The activities coordinators carried out one to one sessions for people who did not wish to participate in communal activities.” from the report
Active leadership and improvement
The manager was visible and staff described a supportive workplace. Audits, meetings and reflective discussions were used to identify improvements and share learning.
“The registered manager carried out reflective conversations for any aspects of the service that were audited and monitored so that the findings were discussed, lessons learnt” from the report
Whistleblowing information
needs fixingSome staff were unsure which outside agencies they could contact if they needed to raise a concern. The manager said this would be revisited in training.
“however some staff were unsure about the outside agencies they could contact as part of this process.” from the report
Occasional staffing pressure
needs fixingMost people and relatives felt staffing was sufficient, but some said more staff would occasionally be helpful. The home had experienced challenges covering short-notice sickness.
“We received comments about occasional times when more staff would be helpful” from the report
Some consent forms were undated
minorConsent records were generally well completed, but some did not include a date. The manager said this would be addressed.
“Some were not dated and the registered manager said this would be addressed.” from the report
End-of-life plans varied in detail
minorPeople's end-of-life wishes were recorded, but the amount of detail differed according to their current condition.
“The level of detail varied depending on people's current condition” from the report
- 01How will you make sure there are enough staff during short-notice sickness or other absences?
- 02How will you ensure all consent forms are dated and kept up to date?
- 03What information and support will be available if someone needs to raise a safeguarding or whistleblowing concern?
- 04How will you record and review my relative's end-of-life wishes in enough detail?
- 05Which activities and one-to-one support would suit my relative's interests and abilities?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 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 Kingsley Court Care Home
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 May 2015.
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 Hillingdon
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 £1,320 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“She has an unusual combination of kindness and firmness, is quite unflappable, physically strong, extremely savvy”
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.