CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Koinonia Christian Care
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some meals were served at a different texture from the person's assessed needs. Diabetes care plans also lacked detail about signs of high or low blood sugar, although medicines, staffing, infection control and other equipment checks were found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had access to food, healthcare and trained staff. Their needs were assessed, and the home worked with health professionals and followed mental capacity and best-interest processes.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions, and staff promoted privacy, independence and personal preferences.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people were supported with relationships, activities, communication, complaints and end-of-life wishes. Some communication plans did not give enough detail for people who could not use words.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The manager and staff were approachable and worked with families and professionals. However, quality checks had not found inaccurate care records or inconsistencies in recording and passing on dietary instructions.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but weaknesses in food safety records and quality checks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 8 and 13 June 2023. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were treated with dignity, had choices, received support with health needs and were offered activities, visitors and opportunities to practise their Christian faith.
Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Some care records were inaccurate or inconsistent. Some meals were prepared to the wrong texture, and diabetes plans did not give enough detail about warning signs. The manager made some corrections and arranged further training during or after the inspection.
This was the first inspection since the service was registered under the current provider. The previous provider's rating was also Requires Improvement, published on 4 May 2022.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff interacting with people respectfully. People were supported with privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
“We saw staff speaking with and interacting with people in a dignified and respectful way throughout the inspection.” from the report
Medicines were managed safely
People received medicines on time. Staff were trained and assessed as competent before giving them.
“People received their medicines at the correct time each day.” from the report
Enough staff
The home used a dependency tool to plan staffing. Inspectors observed staff responding to people without appearing rushed.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised care and activities
People had care plans based on their preferences and were offered social, faith-based and physical activities. Visitors were welcomed.
“People had choice and control of what they wished to do.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked with health and social care professionals to support people's health and care needs.
“The service worked in partnership with health and social care agencies.” from the report
Food was not always the right texture
seriousSome people received food that was more blended than their assessment required. This could increase safety risks for people with swallowing difficulties.
“Some people received food which was prepared to a consistency which was over blended” from the report
Care records contained errors
needs fixingSome records included incorrect conditions or inconsistent information. These errors had not been found by the home's routine checks, although records were amended after inspectors raised the issue.
“Some quality monitoring processes were not always effective in identifying inconstancies and inaccuracies in people's care records.” from the report
Diabetes guidance lacked detail
needs fixingCare plans told staff to look for signs of high or low blood sugar but did not explain clearly what those signs were. The manager reviewed the plans after feedback.
“there was a lack of detail of what the signs were.” from the report
Communication plans were incomplete for some people
minorSome care plans gave little guidance on how to support people who could not communicate using words.
“where people were unable to use words to communicate, there was little information detailed in their care plans” from the report
- 01How do you now check that each person's assessed food texture is followed by catering staff?
- 02What changes have been made to care plans for people living with diabetes?
- 03How do you check that care records do not contain incorrect conditions or conflicting information?
- 04How will you support my relative to communicate if they cannot use words?
- 05What improvement work has been completed since the inspection, and how do you measure whether it is working?
This was an unannounced first inspection of the newly registered service and covered all five CQC key questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 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.
Every inspection of Koinonia Christian Care
7 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- July 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 April 2022.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,020 to £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 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.