CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kismet House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and supportive care, but safety and management systems left people at increased risk of harm.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 14 June 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives and staff. They reviewed care, medicines, recruitment, accident and incident records, and quality checks.
People and relatives said people felt safe and were satisfied with the care. Staff were described as kind, patient and supportive. There were enough staff, and people were supported to make choices and give consent.
However, inspectors found problems with fire safety, access to hazardous areas, medicines, cleaning and infection control. Quality checks had not found or fixed these issues. The overall rating changed from Good at the 2017 inspection to Requires Improvement.
Kind and supportive staff
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. They described staff as kind, patient and helpful.
“A relative said, "Staff genuinely care about [person]. I have only ever seen them being kind and patient with [person].” from the report
Enough staff
People and relatives said there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Inspectors' observations and records supported this.
“A relative said, "There always seems to be enough staff. If I ever need someone, straight away someone is available to talk to.” from the report
Choice and consent
Care records showed consent was considered. People and relatives said staff respected people's decisions, including when someone said no.
“A relative said, "They are respectful to [person] if he says no.” from the report
Positive atmosphere
Inspectors found a relaxed and friendly atmosphere. Staff said morale was good and that they worked well as a team.
“There was a relaxed and friendly atmosphere within the service.” from the report
Environmental and fire risks
seriousThe loft was accessible despite containing tools and other hazards. Some cleaning products were not secure, radiators were mostly uncovered, and fire safety actions had not all been completed promptly.
“Several shortfalls had been identified by the local fire authority during a visit to the service in May 2022.” from the report
Medicines management
seriousThere were missing protocols for some medicines, gaps in staff competency checks and problems with handwritten medicines records and storage records.
“Medicines were not managed safely in line with national guidance.” from the report
Cleaning and infection control
seriousSome bathrooms and a kitchen area were not clean. Cleaning records had gaps, so the provider could not show that cleaning was completed regularly.
“We found gaps in cleaning records which meant the provider could not be assured cleaning was being regularly completed.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits did not identify the environmental, medicines and cleaning problems found by inspectors. Lessons from incidents were also not recorded well.
“These systems were not fully effective in ensuring shortfalls were addressed.” from the report
Limited formal feedback
needs fixingThere was no formal process to collect feedback from people and relatives, and satisfaction surveys had not been completed in recent years.
“There was no formal process in place in capture feedback from people and their relatives.” from the report
- 01What evidence can you show that the medicines problems found in this inspection have been fixed, including PRN protocols, competency checks and medicines records?
- 02Which fire safety actions identified by the fire authority are still outstanding, and when will each one be completed?
- 03How do you now check that bathrooms, the kitchen and other areas are cleaned properly and that cleaning records are complete?
- 04How often are environmental, medicines and infection control audits now completed, and who checks that problems are acted on?
- 05How will people and relatives give feedback, and how will you show that their views lead to improvements?
This inspection reported ratings for Safe and Well-led only; the report gives no ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 July 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, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that Kismet House had suitable coronavirus infection prevention measures in place.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 28 January 2021. It looked at how the home was preventing and controlling coronavirus infections.
Inspectors found no coronavirus outbreak at the time. Residents and staff had tested negative, residents had received their first vaccination, and staff used masks, hand sanitiser and personal protective equipment.
The home had testing arrangements, plans for isolating people, and procedures for safe admissions and visitors. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Infection prevention
The home had not experienced a coronavirus outbreak at the time of inspection. Staff used masks and hand sanitiser, and the home had infection control procedures in place.
“The provider had not had an outbreak of coronavirus within in the home.” from the report
Testing arrangements
Staff and residents were tested regularly. New residents were tested when admitted and supported to isolate in their room.
“Regular testing was carried out, weekly PCR testing for staff and monthly testing for people living in the home, this was in line with coronavirus testing guidance.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had training in infection control and how to put on and remove protective equipment safely. The provider also carried out observations of staff practice.
“Staff had received training in infection control, including how to safely put on and take off personal protective equipment (PPE) such as face coverings, gloves and aprons (if needed).” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What is the current policy for visitors, and how are visits managed safely?
- 02How often are staff and residents currently tested for coronavirus?
- 03What happens if a resident is admitted or develops symptoms of coronavirus?
- 04How will the home manage an outbreak, including isolation, cleaning and shared bathrooms?
- 05What arrangements are in place for areas not covered by this inspection, such as care quality, staffing and leadership?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not provide ratings for the other key questions or an overall quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 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 Kismet House
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- July 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of North Somerset
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 £1,050 to £1,320 a week. 19 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.