CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kingston House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, appropriate recruitment checks, safe medicines systems and plans to manage risks, infections and accidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- People’s needs were assessed before admission. Staff received training and support, people were supported with food, drink and healthcare, and consent and best-interest arrangements were in place.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed positive interactions. Staff knew people well, respected their dignity and choices, and supported them to be as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and communication needs were understood. People were supported to follow their interests, take part in activities and maintain relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a person-centred culture. Staff felt supported, relatives were involved, and management used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor care.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some areas needing redecoration.
The inspection took place on 25 and 27 July 2023. It was unannounced on the first day. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home supported eight people with learning disabilities and autism. Inspectors found enough consistent staff, safe medicines practice, personalised care and support for people to make choices and stay independent. People were supported to take part in activities, attend appointments and keep in touch with relatives.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating and the same rating in each area as at the previous inspection, published on 15 December 2017.
Consistent staffing
Inspectors found enough staff and consistent staffing levels. The home did not need to use agency staff.
“The registered manager told us they had consistent staffing levels and did not need to use agency staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people’s needs and preferences. Staff knew how each person wanted to be supported.
“Support plans were person centred and detailed, providing staff with all the information they needed to support people, and how they wished to be supported.” from the report
Community activities
People were supported to go out, attend day centres or college, follow their interests and visit relatives.
“The registered manager told us that people went out everyday to do activities of their choice.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and checked as competent to administer medicines. Inspectors found the records they reviewed were in good order.
“Medication records we reviewed were in good order, with all the information staff needed to administer medicines safely.” from the report
Some areas need refurbishment
minorInspectors noted that some parts of the home needed redecoration and refurbishment. The provider had a plan to address this.
“Some areas of the service were in need of redecoration and refurbishment, the provider had a plan in place to action these.” from the report
- 01Which areas still need redecoration or refurbishment, and what is the timetable for completing the work?
- 02How will staffing remain consistent if regular staff are unavailable?
- 03How will you support my relative’s individual communication style and preferences?
- 04What activities would be available for my relative in the local community?
- 05How would relatives be kept informed if there were an accident, incident or change in care needs?
This inspection looked at all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control, the premises and the care provided; the previous ratings were all carried forward as Good at this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 August 2023 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, December 2017
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and planning needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 November 2017. One inspector spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and the registered manager. They observed care and reviewed care files, recruitment records, medicines, training, rotas, complaints and quality checks.
The inspectors found suitable arrangements to keep people safe. Staff understood people's needs, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were suitable, and people received kind, respectful and personalised support. People were supported with meals, healthcare, activities and maintaining relationships.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home was rated Good at the previous inspection in December 2015 and remained Good.
Safety arrangements
The home had risk assessments, safeguarding procedures and suitable staffing. Medicines were recorded as given at the right times.
“Suitable arrangements were in place to manage risks appropriately.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and adapted communication and personal care to individual needs, including cultural and gender preferences.
“Staff understood people's different communication needs and how to communicate with them in an effective and proactive way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered people's needs, strengths and preferences. People had opportunities for activities at home and in the community.
“Care plans covered all aspects of a person's individual care and support needs, focussing on the care and support to be delivered by staff, the person's strengths, what was important to the person and their personal preferences.” from the report
Open management
The manager and staff knew people well, and the home used audits, meetings and surveys to check quality and gather views.
“There was a positive culture within the service that was person-centred, open and inclusive.” from the report
Appraisals not complete
needs fixingNot all staff who had worked at the home for more than 12 months had received an annual appraisal. The manager said this was known and planned for completion by the end of December 2017.
“Not all staff employed longer than 12 months had received an annual appraisal of their overall performance.” from the report
Meal choices not always checked
minorPeople were usually involved in planning meals, but they were not asked about the Christmas period meals during the inspection. The manager described this as an oversight.
“Although the registered manager told us and people using the service confirmed they were involved to plan their meals with staff, this did not always happen.” from the report
Activity planners out of date
minorSome weekly activity planners still listed external social clubs that were no longer taking place. The manager was advised to keep these planners up to date.
“The registered manager was advised to ensure people's weekly activity planners were up-to-date as where external social clubs were recorded, these were no longer happening.” from the report
- 01Have all staff who had worked for more than 12 months now received an annual appraisal?
- 02How are people asked about and involved in planning meals?
- 03Have the weekly activity planners been updated to remove activities that are no longer available?
- 04How are changes in people's health needs reflected in their care plans and shared with staff?
- 05How can people and their families raise concerns, and how are complaints followed up?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the home, care provided and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 December 2017 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 Kingston House
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 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
52 live-in carers within about an hour of Southend-on-Sea
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 £1,200 a week. 45 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
“She was always cheerful and looking for ways to stimulate my mother. She became her "friend" and provided best care always.”
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.