CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kingsley Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, visiting, hygiene, admissions and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control. The inspection visit is dated 16 March 2021 on the report cover and 17 March 2021 in the inspection details.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using PPE safely, supporting testing, managing visitors, following social distancing and shielding rules, and keeping its infection control policy up to date.
Staff had training and enough PPE. The home used audits, action plans, testing, planned visits and emergency arrangements to reduce infection risks and support people during restrictions.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most of the five areas.
PPE and staff training
Staff had completed additional training and used PPE appropriately. The home had sufficient supplies and safe places to put on and remove PPE.
“Staff were committed to keeping people safe. They had undertaken additional training and understood the importance of wearing appropriate PPE.” from the report
Testing and infection monitoring
People and staff took part in whole-home testing, with support that considered people's choices and communication needs. Infection control audits and action plans gave the acting manager oversight.
“People and staff were taking part in whole home testing. People were supported to make decisions about testing” from the report
Support during restrictions
Staff helped people and relatives understand isolation and supported contact through telephone and video calls. A booking system was used to plan visits.
“Staff supported people and their relatives to understand the isolation processes and gave consideration as to how the service could help alleviate loneliness and distress during this time.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The manager and senior team had contingency plans for outbreaks and other emergencies. Staff could be grouped differently if someone tested positive to reduce cross-infection risks.
“They had been able to cohort staff when people had tested positive. This had reduced the risks associated with cross infection.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are PPE supplies, staff training and infection control audits being maintained now?
- 02How do you support residents who choose not to take part in testing?
- 03How are visits currently planned, and how do you reduce infection risks for visitors and residents?
- 04What is the current plan if a resident or staff member tests positive?
- 05How is nursing care arranged with the community nursing service when a resident needs it?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it did not provide ratings for the other four key questions or an overall quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 April 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, June 2018
Kingsley Court rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a few paperwork and improvement-tracking gaps.
The inspection took place over two days. It was unannounced on 8 May 2018 and announced on 9 May. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a health professional. They also reviewed care files, medicines records, staff files, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable recruitment checks and care plans that reflected people's needs. People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and friendly.
The home supported people's choices, health needs, food and communication needs. There were activities, although the home was reviewing these and planning an activity programme. Inspectors found some smaller management and paperwork gaps, including one missed record about moving a person between floors and no current improvement plan.
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment records showed appropriate checks had been completed.
“There were enough staff to provide safe care and recruitment checks had ensured they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and supported to make choices. Inspectors saw patient, gentle support that encouraged independence.
“We observed staff interacting with people in a caring and compassionate manner.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, life histories and important relationships. Staff and families were involved in reviews.
“Care plans were available to staff, up to date, regularly reviewed and audited by the management to ensure they reflected people's individual needs, preferences and outcomes.” from the report
Food and health support
People had food choices and support with dietary needs. The home also arranged healthcare visits when needed.
“The kitchen had been awarded a five star food standards rating and all staff had received food hygiene training.” from the report
Missed care paperwork
needs fixingOne person was moved from the first floor to the ground floor after a discussion with their relative, but the required paperwork was not completed.
“The registered manager told us that they had had a conversation with the person's relative but had not completed the appropriate paperwork.” from the report
No live improvement plan
needs fixingThe quality checks were mostly effective, but there was no current improvement plan to make sure actions identified by managers were shared and not forgotten.
“However, there was not a live up to date improvement plan in place.” from the report
Survey feedback not investigated
needs fixingOne resident survey contained negative feedback. At the time of inspection, the management had not investigated it, although they said they would do so as a priority.
“We asked the registered manager if they had investigated this. We were told that they had not but would do so as a matter of priority.” from the report
- 01What action was taken after the missed paperwork when a person was moved between floors?
- 02Has a live improvement plan now been created, and how are actions tracked to completion?
- 03What was the negative feedback in the resident survey, and what was learned from investigating it?
- 04What activities are currently available, and how are they matched to each person's interests and abilities?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in care plan reviews and decisions about their care?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the Good ratings from the previous inspection continued. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 June 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
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 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
15 live-in carers within about an hour of Dorset
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 £1,040 to £1,340 a week. 11 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Even when things get a bit chaotic (as they sometimes do!), you’ve handled it with patience and a sense of humour — which is gold.”
“Nina was patient, focussed on my aunt's physical well-being, and unfazed by what at the time was a new and uncertain situation”
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.