CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Kingswood Court Care Home
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including personal protective equipment, testing, hygiene, safe admissions and outbreak management. They found that the proposed use as a designated care setting did not meet the criteria at that time.
- Effective?
- Outstanding
- This was not assessed in the report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in the report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in the report.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- This was not assessed in the report.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Kingswood Court Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control measures but said its proposed designated-care use did not meet the criteria.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 21 January 2021. It checked infection prevention and control because the home had been identified for possible use for people discharged from hospital with COVID-19.
Inspectors were assured about visitors, social distancing, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning, safe admissions and managing outbreaks. The home had created a screened visiting area, assessed staff risk and trained staff about COVID-19.
The home was inspected but not rated. Inspectors said its proposed use as a designated care setting did not meet the criteria because some staff supported people isolating after contact with COVID-19 as well as people who had tested positive. These groups were cared for separately on different floors.
Safer visiting arrangements
A screened visiting area had been created so friends and family could visit safely during the pandemic.
“Although visits were not possible during the time of inspection, a visiting area had been created with a sealed screen between seating for residents and visitors.” from the report
Staff risk checks
All staff had individual COVID-19 risk assessments. Only staff assessed as low risk were asked to support people who had tested positive.
“All staff had an individual risk assessment to evaluate their level of risk to COVID-19.” from the report
Infection-control systems
Inspectors were assured that the home had systems for personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning, social distancing and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured of the provider's safe management of infection prevention and control.” from the report
Proposed designated-care use did not meet criteria
needs fixingThe proposed arrangement involved staff supporting both people isolating after contact with COVID-19 and people who had recently tested positive. Inspectors said these groups were separated on different floors, but the proposed use still did not meet the criteria.
“However, at the time of inspection the proposed use of the service did not meet the criteria of a designated care setting.” from the report
- 01What changes were made after the inspection because the proposed designated-care arrangement did not meet the criteria?
- 02How are people who are isolating after contact with COVID-19 kept separate from people who have tested positive?
- 03How are staff risk assessments, COVID-19 training and personal protective equipment managed now?
- 04How are visitors supported to visit safely, and what happens if visiting arrangements change?
- 05How often are residents and staff tested, and how are infection outbreaks managed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; the other areas of care were not assessed and no ratings were given. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 February 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, July 2019
Rated Outstanding overall; inspectors found exceptionally effective and well-led care, with some records and infection-control practices needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 February 2019. Two inspectors, a nurse specialist and an expert by experience visited the home. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting GP, and reviewed care records, staff files, audits and other documents.
Inspectors rated the home Outstanding overall. Safe, caring and responsive care were rated Good. Effective and well-led care were rated Outstanding. They found kind and skilled staff, enough staff to meet people's needs, good healthcare support, varied activities and strong leadership focused on improvement.
There were some areas to improve. Care plans were inconsistent, information about some people's diets was displayed where visitors could see it, and cleaning records and procedures for medicine pots were not consistent. The home said it had acted on the privacy issue immediately, and improvement work was already under way.
Strong leadership
The management team had a clear vision and was actively improving the home. Staff were supported, valued and encouraged to develop their practice.
“The service was extremely well led. The providers ethos was strongly promoted and modelled by the management team.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People, relatives and healthcare professionals spoke highly of staff's kindness, compassion and knowledge. Staff knew people's preferences and supported their choices.
“People, their relatives and healthcare professionals were very complimentary about the kindness and competence of staff.” from the report
Good staffing and training
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were completed, and staff received ongoing training, supervision and support.
“There were enough staff to meet the needs of the people who lived here.” from the report
Personalised food and activities
The home paid close attention to people's food preferences, nutrition and hydration. Activities included group and one-to-one options and reflected people's interests.
“Real thought had gone into making each meal time special, and when people needed extra support to eat and drink this was done sensitively and with care.” from the report
Learning and improvement
The provider used feedback, audits and new ideas to improve care, communication and the environment. The reduction in agency staff helped provide more consistent care.
“In the 12 months since the provider has owned the home, there has been a 90% reduction in the use of agency staff.” from the report
Inconsistent care plans
needs fixingSome care plans were basic or generic, and some did not show that care had been completed. A review project was under way, but records were not yet consistent.
“However, it meant that the quality of care plans was inconsistent.” from the report
Cleaning records
needs fixingThere was no daily record showing that frequently used clinical equipment, such as the blood pressure machine, had been cleaned. Inspectors said this created a risk that cleaning could be missed.
“However, there was no log of daily cleaning of regularly used apparatus such as the blood pressure machine.” from the report
Medicine pots
needs fixingStaff gave different accounts of how plastic medicine pots were washed and whether they were disposable. Inspectors found the approach was not consistent.
“There was an inconsistent approach to how plastic pots that were used to give medicines were washed.” from the report
Privacy of information
minorSome people's names, room numbers and dietary information were displayed on a staff noticeboard that visitors could see. The provider said this was removed immediately after the inspection.
“This was visible to visitors that may walk past the noticeboard when walking along the corridor.” from the report
Medicine records
minorMedicine records were generally accurate and up to date, but there had been some gaps where staff had not signed administration records. The provider's audits showed these gaps were followed up.
“Where there had been some gaps, such as staff not signing the medicine administration record, the provider's audit records showed these had been followed up to investigate why this had happened.” from the report
- 01How far has the care-plan review progressed, and how will you make sure each plan reflects the person's current needs and preferences?
- 02How is daily cleaning of frequently used clinical equipment recorded and checked?
- 03Are plastic medicine pots disposable or reusable, and what is the agreed cleaning procedure?
- 04What steps have been taken to prevent people's names, room numbers and dietary information being visible to visitors?
- 05How are missed medicine signatures investigated and used to prevent further recording gaps?
This was an unannounced inspection of the whole care home, including care and the premises, and it assessed all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 July 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 Kingswood Court Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- February 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 February 2018.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.