CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Kingsley House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were assessed, staffing levels were considered, call bells were answered promptly and infection control arrangements were in place, although medicines records had some gaps.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, staff worked with health professionals and people were supported with food, drink and healthcare. The home was improving induction arrangements so new staff consistently received training and shadowing.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors observed positive interactions and found that people's dignity, privacy, choices, equality and cultural needs were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and staff knew people's preferences. People had activities and family contact, complaints were handled appropriately, and the home was developing more detailed end of life records.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a clear management structure, quality checks and a culture of learning from incidents and complaints. People and staff were able to give feedback, and leaders worked with other professionals.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some medicines and staff training records still being strengthened.
Inspectors visited without warning on 26 and 27 April 2022. They spoke with six people, seven relatives, eight staff members and health professionals. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, accident records, policies and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were described as safe, well cared for and treated with kindness. Staff knew people's needs and preferences, and people received support with food, healthcare, activities and family contact.
Inspectors found some areas still being improved. Medicines administration records had gaps, systems for checking medicines were being strengthened, and the home was improving induction and supervision for new staff. The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection published in April 2019.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw positive, friendly interactions and found that staff understood people's individual needs.
“People and relatives said the staff were kind and caring. We observed positive interactions throughout our inspection.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's needs, choices and preferences. Staff knew people well and adapted support to their changing needs.
“People received person-centred care based on their individual needs, choices and preferences.” from the report
Safe staffing and recruitment
The home used dependency information to plan staffing. Inspectors found enough staff, timely responses to call bells and appropriate checks before staff were employed.
“We observed people's call bells were responded to in a timely manner and people were not rushed when receiving care or support.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People could take part in activities they enjoyed and were supported to keep in touch with relatives. Plans were being made to increase links with the local community.
“People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed and were protected from the risk of social of isolation.” from the report
Learning and oversight
The home reviewed accidents, incidents, complaints and audit results. Inspectors found evidence that learning was shared and used to reduce the risk of problems happening again.
“Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysed by the registered manager to monitor for any patterns or trends and appropriate action was taken to mitigate future risk.” from the report
Gaps in medicines records
needs fixingSome medicine administration records had gaps. The home had identified these as administration errors and was strengthening its checks and audit trail.
“Medicine administration records (MARs) contained some gaps which the provider had identified as administration errors.” from the report
New staff induction
needs fixingInspectors received mixed feedback about new staff. The home was still developing systems to ensure new staff consistently completed induction and shadowed experienced colleagues until competent.
“The registered manager was continuing to develop their systems to ensure new staff consistently received induction training and shadowed more experienced colleagues until they were assessed as competent.” from the report
More detailed end of life records
minorPeople's wishes about treatment were recorded, but the home was developing records to capture more detail about who should be involved and religious or spiritual needs.
“The registered manager was now developing their documentation to capture more details such as who people wanted to be involved at the end of their life, as well as their religious and spiritual needs.” from the report
Involvement in care planning
minorPeople and families were generally involved in care planning, but inspectors recorded examples where people felt they could be more directly involved.
“We shared examples where people felt they could be more involved directly with the registered manager to make the necessary improvements.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to prevent gaps in medicine administration records?
- 02How do you check that new staff have completed induction and are competent before working without close support?
- 03How will my relative's end of life wishes, including who should be involved and any religious or spiritual needs, be recorded?
- 04How will my relative and our family be involved in reviewing the care plan?
- 05How do you use feedback, complaints and accident reviews to make changes?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five rating areas, including the care provided and the premises; the previous overall and question ratings were Good in 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 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.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements completed since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 and 6 March 2019. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff, the manager and the provider's representative. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines, complaints, incident records, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were safe, medicines were managed properly, staff knew people's needs and care plans reflected personal choices. People and relatives said staff were kind and caring.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in March 2018. The inspection checked progress on six earlier breaches. Inspectors found the required improvements had been completed, including safer medicines management, risk management, communication, dignity, activities and quality checks.
Kind and familiar staff
People were supported by a consistent team who knew their needs and communication styles well. People and relatives spoke positively about the staff.
“People were supported by a consistent team of staff who were kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included likes, dislikes, preferred routines and how people wanted support to be provided. Inspectors saw staff following these preferences.
“Care plans were person centred and included people's personal preferences.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk management
Inspectors found that medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Risk assessments gave staff clear guidance about falls, pressure ulcers and other risks.
“Medication administration record's (MAR) were accurately completed and showed people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Activities and independence
People could take part in activities such as arts and crafts, entertainment and seasonal events. Staff supported people to remain independent and join activities in their rooms when needed.
“Where people were unable to attend a communal area, a portable pancake maker was taken to people so that they could participate.” from the report
Improvements since the last inspection
The home had acted on the six breaches found at the previous inspection. Inspectors found that the required improvements had been completed.
“At this inspection we found this action had been completed and the requirements of the regulations were met.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are staffing levels currently calculated when people's needs change?
- 02How do you make sure agency staff understand my relative's needs and preferences if they are used?
- 03How are medicines prescribed to be given 'as and when required' recorded and reviewed?
- 04What activities are available for people who cannot attend communal areas?
- 05How will you involve my relative and our family in reviewing the care plan and raising concerns?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, the premises and the care provided, and it also checked progress on six breaches from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 April 2019 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 House
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.