Kimwick Care Home

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 changed to Inadequate.

Inadequate: This meant people were not safe and were at risk of avoidable harm.

We identified 1 breach of the legal regulation in relation to the management of people’s individual risks, medicines, the premises and equipment being unsafe and infection prevention and control.

The provider did not always assess or mitigate risks to people’s health and safety. Care plans and risk assessments in place for people were not always detailed or accurate. The provider had not ensured the environment at the service was safe. There was no evidence that incidents and accidents were reflected upon to enable lessons to be learned. Staff were not always recruited safely; we identified gaps in recruitment records during this assessment.

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained Requires Improvement. Requires Improvement: This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The provider had not ensured people’s needs were properly assessed before they were admitted to the home and people’s health concerns were not always followed up in a timely manner. People told us staff asked for their consent before providing care and support, however the processes in place did not always support compliance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has deteriorated to Requires Improvement.

Requires improvement: This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

People’s independence was not promoted, and people were not supported to have choice and control over the activities they participated in. There was a lack of support and encouragement for people to realise their goals and aspirations. We identified 1 breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement.

Requires improvement: This meant people’s needs were not always met.

People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint; however, complaints were not responded to effectively. Processes were in place to enable people to provide feedback on their care. However, these were not implemented in a person-centred way.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Inadequate.

Inadequate: This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not assure the delivery of high-quality care.

We identified 1 breach of the legal regulations in relation to the governance of the service. The governance systems in place were not effective in identifying areas for improvement and the provider had failed to act to maintain the service to a safe standard. We received negative feedback from commissioners and people’s relatives about the management and leadership of the service. There had been no improvement at the service since our last inspection and many areas of the service had deteriorated.