You are here

Archived: Kents Hill Care Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 9 July 2016

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 10 February 2016, during which breaches of legal requirements were found. We found that people's medication was not always managed and fully documented and did not demonstrate that people's medication was safely administered. We also found that responses to people's individual call-bells were not always fast enough, which meant they did not always receive the care and support they required.

We asked the provider to submit an action plan to tell us how they would meet these regulations in the future; they stated that they would be meeting them by 31 May 2016. During this inspection we returned to see if the service had made the improvements they stated in their action plan. We found that the provider was now meeting these regulations.

We undertook this focused inspection on 15 June 2016 to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Kents Hill Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Kents Hill Care Home is based in a residential area of Milton Keynes and provides nursing and personal care for older people, who may be living with dementia. The service is registered to provide care for up to 75 people, on the day of our inspection there were 60 people living there.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

Improvements had been made to the systems for medication management and documentation. The registered manager had made sure that people's medication records had photographs and information to guide staff. In addition, they had implemented checks and audits to monitor the administration of medication and identify areas for improvement.

The provider had also made improvements regarding response times to people's call-bells. There had been changes made to staff deployment within the service and the system for when staff took their breaks to help ensure busy times were covered by staff. Audits were carried out to review staff responses to call-bells, to ensure people's needs were met in a timely manner.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 9 July 2016

The service was not consistently safe.

There had been improvements to the way that medication administration was managed and documented by the service.

We could not improve the rating for safe from requires improvement, because to do so requires consistent good practice over time. We will check this during our next planned comprehensive inspection.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 April 2016

The service was effective.

Staff received regular training, and support to ensure they had the skills and knowledge that they needed to perform their roles.

People�s consent to care was sought. There were systems in place to comply with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, however, this was not always time and decision specific.

People had choices about, and enjoyed, the food and drink that they had.

The service worked to ensure that people�s healthcare needs were managed.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 9 July 2016

The service was not consistently caring.

Improvements had been made to call-bell response times. The registered manager had implemented systems to ensure call-bells were responded to quickly, as well as audits to monitor the response to them.

We could not improve the rating for caring from requires improvement, because to do so requires consistent good practice over time. We will check this during our next planned comprehensive inspection.

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 April 2016

The service was responsive.

People received care that was personalised and specific to their individual needs.

Care plans were detailed and tailored to each person, and reviewed on a regular basis.

There were systems in place to manage complaints and improve the care being provided as a result.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 6 April 2016

The service was not always well-led.

There were systems in place to carry out checks and audits, however these were not always effective in identifying areas for improvement.

The service had a welcoming atmosphere, as well as an open and positive culture.

There was a registered manager in post. They were well known to people and a visible presence throughout the service.