You are here

Kingfisher House Care Home Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 4 April 2018

This unannounced inspection took place on 30 January 2018. At the last inspection on 23 and 24 January 2017 there were five breaches of regulations that we have followed up. Three breaches related directly to the care of people. These were that risks were not fully mitigated because of poor assessment, planning and evaluation of risks; records did not always provide an accurate, contemporaneous record and not everyone received the support or adequate monitoring of their dietary needs. We have seen improvements in many areas. This included the other two breaches relating to staffing and management systems known as governance.

Following the last inspection we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the service. We also met with the provider to confirm that all our key questions would improve to at least good.

Kingfisher House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Kingfisher House site is purpose built and can accommodate up to 91 people in total. At the time of our visit there were 70 people living at the service. In Kingfisher House, downstairs is for people with personal care needs, commonly known as ‘residential care’ and upstairs is for people requiring nursing care. Next door and part of the registration is Spiller. This is purpose built accommodation for people living with dementia. Again this is split into two units with personal care downstairs and nursing care upstairs. There were 26 people in Spiller on the day of our visit and it can accommodate up to 29 people. Everyone can have access to outside space as there are gardens surrounding the accommodation.

The registered manager was present throughout the inspection visit. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The registered manager was very responsive to feedback given and wanted to improve the service for people where ever they could. We received confirmation of actions taken following our inspection visit. These included the change from domestic showers to health care standard showers so that hot water could be continuously delivered at the correct temperature and not present a risk of scalding. The installation of the domestic showers had been commissioned by the provider and the usage had not been reviewed. This had placed people at potential risk. People had confidence in the management team and found the service to be well led. The management was approachable to people and staff spoke highly of them. There was a desire to drive improvement from monitoring service delivered and acting when matters needed addressing.

People at the service could expect a comfortable, clean and appropriate environment in which to live. People were very complimentary about the catering and food provided. People had access to appropriate healthcare to keep them well. There was a variety and range of activities for people to become involved with should they choose to do so. Relatives and friends could visit people whenever they desired. There were pleasant seating areas both inside and in the gardens.

People’s care records were well kept and the assessments and plans provided staff with clear information on how best to support people. Information about people’s history, likes and dislikes enabled staff to provide personalised care. Care plans had small details such as how people liked their tea served. Risk assessments were known by staff and followed to keep everyone safe. People were consulted and involved with their care. Pla

Inspection areas



Updated 4 April 2018

The service was safe.

People received safe support with their medicines.

Staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people from abuse and were confident about reporting their concerns.

There were sufficient numbers of staff employed to meet people�s needs.

The home was clean and people were protected by the prevention and control of infection.

People had risk assessments in place to guide staff in providing safe support.



Updated 4 April 2018

The service was effective.

The design and layout of the building met the needs of people who lived here. Adaptations such as health care standard showers had improved.

People�s rights were protected in line with the Mental Capacity Act and DoLS.

Staff were well trained and received supervision to monitor their performance and development needs.

People were supported nutritionally in accordance with their needs.

People received support from community health professionals when necessary. Service staff worked well with other agencies.



Updated 4 April 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were kind and caring in their approach and relatives were positive about the care people received.

People and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care.

People were treated with respect.



Updated 4 April 2018

The service was responsive.

Care plans were person centred and covered a range of people�s needs.

People had access to a range of activities suited to their needs.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people felt confident about raising concerns.

People could expect a comfortable, dignified and pain free death.


Requires improvement

Updated 4 April 2018

The service was not consistently well led.

The service was well led by a management team who were open, inclusive and empowering. The service was keen to continuously learn and improve.

People were consulted and involved in the running of the service.

There were systems in place to assess quality and safety. However, the provider had not identified the matter of the showers being unsuitable.