The Kensington Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People and their relatives said they felt very safe using the service, and the support they received was good. They told us staff supporting people understood how to keep them safe. A relative said, “This is such a safe place for [Person using the service] to live.” People and their relatives were confident in raising concerns, received a prompt response, and if they felt there were safety issues, they were appropriately investigated, and they received an outcome. The impact of this was that people were reassured that they received care that would keep them safe, and any concerns about their safety would be fully investigated and rectified.

Staff we spoke with showed a thorough knowledge of safeguarding and were confident in reporting procedures. They demonstrated a clear understanding of Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP) principles, placing emphasis on individual outcomes and supporting people’s choices. A staff member explained, “We are very

focused on keeping people safe.” Another staff member said, “If we are worried about a person’s safety, we report it to the management team who investigate.” These comments reflected a well-embedded safeguarding framework that was understood and applied consistently across the team.

The management team had ensured they were working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

Where people were subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), these were followed appropriately.

The provider worked well with people to fully understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care tomeet people’s needsthatwas safe,supportiveand enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. A staff member told us,“We have a lot of knowledge about people and whattheyare able to do safely.”

People said that staff regularly sought their views, opinions, and checked that they were receiving the support they required which enabled them to lead their lives the way they wished, within an acceptable risk-based environment. A person said, “We are encouraged to do what we can for ourselves and be involved in making decisions.” People told us they were offered copies of their care plans, reinforcing transparency and shared ownership of their care and managing risks. The care plans and risk assessments we reviewed included people’s perspectives on how risks should be managed, with decisions made collaboratively to promote independence, choice, and control. Relatives also spoke positively about the service’s approach to risk. A relative commented, “The [registered] manager and staff have a very positive approach to people doing what they want too safely.”

The provider had a robust accident and incident reporting policy in place, accessible to all staff. Staff we spoke with demonstrated a clear understanding of the procedures for recording and reporting incidents, and described the systems used to ensure timely and accurate documentation. This structured approach supported a safe environment where risks are actively monitored and addressed. 

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.This was a commitment to a collaborative multidisciplinary team approach involving all staff irrespective of their job title or seniority. The staff we spoke with said there was a positive team culture, describing a strong ethic of working together. A staff member said, “We work together very well as a team.”

The staff levels meant people were supported to pursue their interests and hobbies when they wished. For example,‘A monthly what residents want’ forum took place where people discussed what activities they would like. They included poetry readings, arts and crafts and visits to places such as the Victoria and Albert museum and Holland Park.

Supervision records confirmed that staff had regular one-to-one meetings with management to support professional development and identify further learning needs. Systems were in place to monitor training and supervision, ensuring staff remained up to date and equipped to deliver safe, effective, and person-centred care. 

The staff recruitment files contained all appropriate up to date processes and checks. The service conducted enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, which included details of any convictions or cautions held on the Police National Computer. This information supported the provider in making safer recruitment decisions. Staff received training that was comprehensive and based on the Skills for Care 'Common induction standards’.They form part of the Care Certificate which is an agreed set of standards that define the knowledge, skills and behaviours expected of specific job roles in the health and social care sectors. Disciplinary and capability processes were fair and regularly reviewed to ensure there was no disadvantage based on any specific protected equality characteristics. A staff member said, “I always feel treated fairly and listened to [by the management team].”

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.