Kent House

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 21 November 2025. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of assessment 18 September to 20 October 2025. We visited the service on 18 and 25 September 2025.

The assessment was carried out as we had received concerns in relation to staffing levels, the quality of care provided to people, care tasks not being completed, a bullying culture and staff feeling fearful of speaking up. We had assurances gained from the provider on all occasions when issues had been raised. A lot of changes were being made to the running of the service, which had been met with negativity from some members of staff. These issues were being addressed by the provider in a supportive manner.

Kent House is a residential care home providing care and support to a maximum of 27 older people. At the time of our assessment there were 22 people living at the home.

Records viewed consistently showed there was a proactive culture regarding health and safety incidents or concerns. These had been effectively reflected upon and used to drive improvement.Accidents and incidents were monitored for any patterns to aid learning and had resulted in changes that improved care for people. There were appropriate and timely referrals and reviews of people’s care and support. For example, with GPs, community nurses, older people mental health team (OPMHT) and the speech and language therapy team (SALT).

The service worked in partnership with people to understand and manage risks. People lived safely and free from unwarranted restrictions because the service assessed, monitored, and managed safety well. We found the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were requested to deprive a person of their liberty. Any conditions related to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were being met.

Staff were trained to monitor, anticipate, and observe changes in behaviour. This helped them identify if people were unwell or upset and provide the support they needed. Effective infection control measures were in place. Medicines were managed safely.

The provider undertook regular health and safety checks of the premises. Safety systems and equipment used at the service were maintained and serviced at regular intervals to make sure these remained in good order and safe for use.

There had been several staffing-related issues needing to be addressed at Kent House to ensure it operated in line with the provider's other services. The provider was in the process of addressing these issues, including consultations with those affected by the changes and regular updates were provided to staff through various communication channels. The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. The provider used safe and effective recruitment and selection processes to recruit new staff.

People had care and support plans that were personalised, holistic, strengths-based and reflected their needs and aspirations, including their physical and mental health needs. Regular reviews took place to ensure people’s current and changing needs were being met. People felt valued by staff who showed genuine interest in their well-being and quality of life. People’s specific nutrition and hydration needs were met in line with current guidance.

Peoplereceivedkind and compassionatecare from staff who used positive, respectful language which people understood and responded well to. People’s equality, diversity and human rights were respected. Staff saw people as their equal and created a warm and inclusive atmosphere.

Staff relationships with people were caring and supportive. People engaged in a variety of person-centred activities. Throughout our visits we saw people being encouraged by staff to be as independent as possible. For example, whilst mobilising around the home, joining in activities, and eating independently with the aid of adaptations.

Due to the changes to how Kent House was being operated, this had created a negative culture amongst some of the staff group. This was being proactively addressed by the provider, including the appointment of a new home manager. Processes were in place to support staff and these were evidently supporting staff through the transition. There had been an increase in staff meetings and engagement from the provider to support staff through the changes within Kent House. These included, a ‘you said, we did’ report in response to concerns raised by staff. This included, why changes were needed to how Kent House was run, staffing levels, rotas, staff hours and management cover and support available to staff.

There were clear and effective governance, management, sustainability, and accountability arrangements in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.

The provider and their management team worked with other services, including the local authority. They accessed best practice learning resources and kept up to date with changes in the social care system.