CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Kingsmead Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, medicines, infection control and incidents were managed safely, although staffing was short on the inspection day because of unplanned absences.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and support, and people received help with nutrition, healthcare and decision-making. Inspectors said the dementia floor could be improved to aid navigation and stimulation.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as caring. Inspectors saw people treated politely and respectfully, with support for dignity, independence, choices and involvement in care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly updated. Activities and communication were arranged around people's needs, but no activities were observed on one day because the activities coordinator was absent.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a stable management and staff structure, regular audits and ways to involve people and relatives. The provider had plans for continued improvement.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring care, but staffing, food choices and the dementia environment needed attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 August and 2 September 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They looked at care records, medicine records, recruitment and training records, the building and the home's quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were safe, received their medicines as prescribed, had personalised care and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
There were some areas to improve. Staff were sometimes short during busy periods, the dementia floor was not fully suitable for helping people find their way, food choices were limited for some people, and no activities were seen on one inspection day because the activities coordinator was absent.
The provider shared an action plan for improvements to the environment. The previous rating under the former provider was Good, published on 13 April 2018.
Safe care
Inspectors found that staff knew how to recognise and report abuse, risks were assessed, and medicines were administered and recorded safely.
“People living at Kingsmead told us they received safe care from skilled and knowledgeable staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and routines. Staff knew people well and shared updates about changing needs.
“People received personalised care and support specific to their needs, preferences and routines.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff communicating politely and supporting people's dignity, independence and choices.
“People were treated with dignity and respect at all times and were not discriminated against.” from the report
Good decision-making support
Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act and supported people to make choices, using best-interest decisions when needed.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home reviewed incidents and made changes where lessons were identified, including changes relating to possible head injuries for people taking blood-thinning medicines.
“Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses; they were fully supported when they did so.” from the report
Staffing at busy times
needs fixingStaff were sometimes busy and task-focused, with limited time to talk to people. Rotas often met planned levels, but the home was short-staffed during the inspection because of unplanned absences.
“However, on the day of the inspection staff were working short due to unplanned staff absences.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
needs fixingThe dementia floor did not provide enough visual guidance or stimulation. The provider shared an action plan and made some immediate changes to one lounge.
“The general decoration was not dementia friendly and there were no things to aid stimulation.” from the report
Food choice and quality
needs fixingSome people and relatives said food choices were limited and that some food lacked taste. The home did not have a chef at the time, so care staff were cooking some meals.
“People told us they ate the food, but they were critical of the quality and choices offered.” from the report
Activities cover
minorNo activities were observed on the inspection day because the activities coordinator was absent and cover could not be found. Staff were also too busy for meaningful interaction with people.
“On the day of the inspection we did not observe any activities.” from the report
- 01How do you cover short-notice staff absences, and what staffing arrangements are used during busy mornings and at night?
- 02What improvements from the action plan have been completed on the dementia floor, including themed areas, sensory spaces and navigation points?
- 03Who prepares meals now, and how do you respond when residents say the food choices or quality are not suitable?
- 04What activities are available if the activities coordinator is absent, including one-to-one activities for people who do not join groups?
- 05How will you make sure staff have enough time to talk with residents and provide meaningful interaction?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the previous rating was Good under the former provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 September 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, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were in place.
Inspectors visited the home on 11 February 2021. This was an announced, targeted inspection carried out during the coronavirus pandemic. It focused on infection prevention and control.
Inspectors were assured that visitors, new admissions, residents and staff were protected through testing, personal protective equipment, cleaning, social distancing and infection control procedures. They also found that staff supported residents to keep in touch with relatives and maintain activities during lockdown.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not produce a new overall quality rating or a full rating for all five areas of care.
Safe visiting
The provider had created a visiting pod with a glass division and used booking and cleaning arrangements between visits.
“The provider purchased a visiting 'pod' that was divided with see-through glass to allow for safe visits to take place in a Covid-19 secure environment.” from the report
Family contact
Relatives received regular updates, and residents could use video or telephone calls to stay in touch with family.
“The registered manager ensured communication such as newsletters were regularly sent out to people's relatives.” from the report
PPE and testing
Staff had training in PPE and handwashing, with PPE supplies available. Regular Covid-19 testing was in place for residents and staff.
“Staff were trained in correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and handwashing.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found that infection control audits were carried out and that frequently touched surfaces were disinfected regularly.
“The housekeeping team worked to keep the service clean, with attention given to frequently touched surfaces that were disinfected regularly.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the home's current arrangements for testing residents and staff for infections?
- 02How are visits managed now, and is the visiting pod still available?
- 03How are new residents admitted safely, including testing, zoning and isolation arrangements?
- 04How are residents receiving end-of-life care supported to have visits?
- 05What are the home's current ratings for caring, effective, responsive and well-led care, which this inspection did not assess?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 March 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.
Every inspection of Kingsmead Care Home
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 July 2020.
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
44 live-in carers within about an hour of Swindon
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 £990 to £1,280 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Linet became her carer and all changed, my daughter started eating, taking her medications and more important her happiness came back.”
“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.