Kensington Hall

Inspectors found enough skilled and experienced staff to meet people's health and physical needs safely. Recruitment processes were also found to be safe.

“The provider ensured there were enough suitable staff. The provider operated safe recruitment processes.” from the report

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff knew how to raise concerns and understood people's safety needs.

“People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm.” from the report

Most people and relatives described a positive atmosphere. Staff were seen as caring, approachable and knowledgeable about people's needs.

“Most people told us there was a positive atmosphere in the home.” from the report

Inspectors found safe infection control practices and systems for checking the building's safety and cleanliness.

“People were protected from the risk of infection as staff were following safe infection prevention and control practices.” from the report

Some care plans and risk assessments lacked important details or contained information that was no longer current. Staff were following agreed protocols, but these did not always match the records.

“Care records were not always complete or accurate.” from the report

Records and instructions for creams and medicines taken when needed were not always clear or complete. Audits had not identified these problems.

“Guidance and records were not always in place to support the safe administration of topical medicines.” from the report

The provider's audits did not consistently identify problems with care records, medicines or person-centred documents. This led to a breach of Regulation 17.

“The provider's quality assurance systems and processes were not always effective.” from the report

Care plans did not always set clear goals for independence and quality of life. Some people had limited social engagement or community access.

“I wish staff would do more activities with [family member] and they were not just left sitting.” from the report