We carried out a review of the data available to us about Queens Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Queens Court, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The service was only receiving essential visitors at the time of our inspection. Any person entering the building undertook a rapid flow test (RFT), which gives a COVID-19 test result within 30 minutes. Visitors also had their temperature taken, completed a health questionnaire and wore full personal protective
equipment (PPE).
People who had been confirmed as being COVID-19 positive were supported by staff in full PPE. This is called barrier nursing. This is to protect both staff and people living in the service from spreading infection. All staff had received training in the correct use of PPE, and how to take it off and put it on safely.
The manager told us that they had changed systems within the service to reduce the risk of spread of infection. For example, staff did not mix between flats.
People were supported to have regular contact with their families and friends via window visits, video calling and telephone calls.
Whole home testing was carried out on both people and staff.
Cleaning of the home, including frequently touched surfaces, had increased to reduce the risk of transmission of infection. There were ample supplies of PPE and disposable cleaning equipment to reduce the spread of infection.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The registered manager, management team and staff working in the service were all very dedicated to providing care and support to people in an individual and meaningful way. Staff knew people’s needs in detail including, their likes and dislikes and what gave them comfort. Staff went the extra mile so that people felt well cared for and people received high quality and personalised care. One person described how staff had given them their life back. Healthcare professionals were highly complementary about the support that people received at the home and the excellent working relationships they had with the staff. The service demonstrated the remarkable achievements made to improve people's quality and experience of life. People and their families were supported with outstanding end of life care. One relative said, staff recognised even the slightest changes in people’s health and promptly requested the relevant healthcare support to ensure that they were comfortable. One relative told us, “They provide personal loving care to my [family member] the staff have been wonderful how they look after [family member], they have supported them.”
People continued to feel safe living at the service. Risk assessments had been completed to ensure that action was taken to keep people safe. Staffing levels were appropriate to meet people’s needs in a timely manner. People received their medication as prescribed. There were systems in place to record, monitor and learn from accidents and incidents.
Staff had the knowledge, skills and support they required to meet people’s needs effectively. People’s physical, emotional and social needs were identified so staff could meet these. People received support with eating and drinking when needed. People were supported to maintain good health and were supported by or referred to the relevant healthcare professionals. People consented to their care or when appropriate best interest decisions were taken on their behalf.
People, relatives and staff told us the service had strong leadership and an open and supportive culture. The service identified areas for improvement so that people received a good service.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (report published June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
This unannounced inspection took place on 18 April 2017.
There was a registered manager in place. 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.
Action had been taken to minimise the risks to people. Risk assessments identified risks and provided staff with the information they needed to reduce risks were possible. Staff were following the correct procedures when administrating, recording and storing medication so that people received their medication as prescribed. Staff were aware of the procedures to follow if they thought anyone had been harmed.
Staff were only employed after they completed a thorough recruitment procedure. There were enough staff on shift to ensure that people had their needs met in a timely manner. Staff received the training they required to meet people’s needs and were supported in their roles.
The CQC is required by law to monitor the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. The provider had completed some capacity assessments and DoLS applications. The provider could demonstrate how they supported people to make decisions about their care and the principles of the MCA were being followed.
Staff were highly motivated to provide care that was kind and compassionate. They knew people well and were aware of their history, preferences, likes and dislikes. People’s privacy and dignity were respected. A “Seize the day” initiative had been implemented which gave people the opportunity to try something they had always wanted to do. Staff spoke enthusiastically about the opportunities that they had been given and said that people had really enjoyed the experiences that had been created for them.
Staff monitored people’s health and welfare needs and acted on issues identified. People had been referred to healthcare professionals when needed. People were provided with a choice of food and drink that they enjoyed. People were given the right amount of support to enable them to eat and drink.
There was a varied programme of activities including in- house group activities, one-to-one activities, entertainers and trips out. Staff supported people to maintain their interests and their links with the local community to promote social inclusion.
Care plans gave staff the information they required to meet people’s care and support needs. People receive support in the way that they preferred and met their individual needs.
There was a complaints procedure in place and people and their relatives felt confident to raise any concerns either with the staff or manager. Complaints had been dealt with appropriately.
There was an effective quality assurance process in place which included obtaining the views of people that lived in the home and their relatives. Where needed action had been taken to make improvements to the service being offered.
This unannounced inspection took place on 18 March 2016.
The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 scheme is run.
People had their needs assessed and reviewed so that staff knew how to meet their care needs. People’s care plans were completed and reviewed with them or their relative.
The risk of harm for people was reduced because staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. There was a sufficient number of staff to meet the care needs of people living in the home. Satisfactory pre-employment checks were completed before staff were employed to care for people in the home.
People were supported to be as safe as possible because assessments had been completed for all risks and how they were managed. This meant staff had the information they needed to reduce risks.
The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. Staff were trained in the principles of the MCA and DoLS and could describe how people were supported to make best interest decisions. The registered manager had made applications so that people were not deprived of their liberty unlawfully.
People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed and medicines were safely managed.
An effective induction process was in place to support new staff and further training was provided to ensure all staff had the necessary expertise to meet people’s needs.
People did not always have sufficient food and drink of their choice throughout the day. Although staff knew people’s likes and dislikes they were not always taken into account. People were supported by kind, caring and happy staff. People’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff.
People’s food and fluid charts were not fully completed. A range of audit and quality assurance procedures were in place. These were used as a means of identifying areas for improvement and also where good practice had been established. Information to assess the quality of the service was gained through residents’ and relatives’ meetings, quality questionnaires and staff meetings.
We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
We found that consent had been recorded within people's care plans and that people's care and support needs were well documented.
We saw that people were given appropriate choices in food and drink. They were given support to prepare and serve the meals.
Medication storage and records were well maintained.
Staff told us they felt supported and had received the required training to carry out their roles in supporting people.
Effective recruitment procedures were in place which protected people who received care and support at Queens Court.
People we spoke with told us how happy they were at Queens Court. One person said, 'I'm very happy here ' I hope to stay here for the rest of my life'. Another person told us, 'I like it here. You make good friends in here and I can go out when I want to'. People were able to make choices in all aspects of their lives, including the care and treatment they received. People were treated with respect and their privacy and dignity were maintained. Care records were personalised. Care plans we looked at gave staff good details about the care each person needed, other than one plan, which had not been adequately updated.
We looked at some of the cards and letters that had been sent to thank the home for the care given. People were effusive in their praise of the care given and of the staff. One person wrote, 'My sincere thanks for my most happy stay at Queens Court. Also to the wonderful staff who all do a marvellous job'. Another wrote, 'This is a wonderful home, with wonderful people'. There had been no complaints.
People told us they liked the food, they felt safe at Queens Court and they thought the staff were very good. We saw that staff had the right skills to work well with people who were living with dementia. Staff told us this was a good place to work. They were suitably trained, had the skills to care for people properly and generally there were enough staff on duty. One member of staff said, 'I feel really at home and really happy here ' it's the best choice [of job] that I could have made'.
We observed that in their different ways, people showed that they were content living at this home and that they had good relationships with the staff. They showed that they felt safe, and were satisfied with the service being provided.
During this inspection we found that the provider had made improvements in relation to medicines, which we had identified were needed following our inspection in January 2012.
One person who was staying at the home on a short term basis said, "It's lovely here, the staff are lovely".