Kingsleigh

Updated 12 December 2020

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 1st December 2020 and was unannounced.

Updated 12 December 2020

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

Kingsleigh is owned and operated by Care UK Community Partnerships Ltd. It provides accommodation and personal care for up to 67 older people, who may also be living with dementia. The facilities are purpose built and organised into five, ground floor units with level access from the car park. On the day of our inspection 44 people were living at the service.

The provider had implemented measures to reduce the risk of infection. Staff were observed wearing appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and they received ongoing training in its correct use.

The service was clean and hygienic. Additional cleaning schedules had been implemented since the beginning of the pandemic, including the continuous cleaning of high-touch areas such as door handles and switches. Deep cleaning of communal areas, including the use of an antiviral fogging machine was carried out overnight.

The provider had an infection prevention and control (IPC) policy. Designated staff carried out regular IPC audits to ensure appropriate standards in this area were maintained.

The provider had taken action to minimise risks to people who used the service and staff. Risk assessments had been carried out to identify and mitigate risks, including for people in vulnerable groups.

Staff accessed weekly Covid testing. If staff returned positive test results or had Covid symptoms, they did not return to work until they had completed the required period of self-isolation.

People who lived at Kingsleigh also had access to regular testing and valid consent had been obtained in respect of this. Where people lacked the capacity to consent to testing, the registered manager had ensured decisions were made following best interests principles.

If people displayed symptoms or tested positive for Covid, staff encouraged them to self-isolate in their bedrooms. Where this was not possible, people were supported to remain on their own units to minimise the risk of spread across the service.

People’s families were unable to visit inside the home at the time of this inspection due to its outbreak status. Exceptions were however made for people receiving end of life care. Staff supported other people to maintain contact with their families through phone calls and video meetings. Prior to the outbreak, relatives had been able to book appointments to visit their loved ones either in the garden or a designated Covid-secure visiting room. All visitors to the home were required to wear appropriate PPE and screened before entering the service, including temperature checks and a Covid questionnaire.

Staff supported people to access the healthcare treatment they required. The registered manager had good links with the local District Nursing service who were providing daily support where needed.

Staff had been well supported during the pandemic through the provision of information and guidance, at team meetings and at individual meetings. Staff had been encouraged to speak up about any anxieties or concerns they had.

We found the following examples of good practice:

The home’s staffing model ensured people received consistent support and minimised the risk of cross-infection across the service. As far as possible, staff were assigned to work in only one area of the service. Core staff had worked additional hours and been flexible with their shifts to mitigate the need for agency staff to work within the service.

Further information is in the findings below.