We carried out a review of the data available to us about Prince George Duke of Kent 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 Prince George Duke of Kent Court, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Staff screened any visitors for symptoms of COVID-19 before allowing them to enter the home. The provider was permitting visits to people in line with current national guidelines which included regular visits from their ‘essential care givers’. Staff also ensured visitors were tested and had access to appropriate PPE when they visited.
The home was routinely cleaned, with additional focus given to cleaning any ‘high touch points’ such as handrails or door handles. The provider had appropriate infection prevention and control policies and procedures in place which staff understood and followed.
People and staff were routinely tested for COVID-19, in line with national guidelines. They had also been vaccinated and the provider had a vaccination tracker in place which confirmed any visiting contractors or health professional had their vaccination status checked.
The home followed current national requirements when admitting people to the home. People and staff were supported to isolate where they showed symptoms of COVID-19 or received a positive test result.
The registered manager knew the procedures for reporting any positive test results to the local authority’s Public Health team and worked in accordance with any guidance they provided in response.
Staff were aware of the procedures for donning and doffing PPE. We observed staff wearing appropriate PPE during our inspection. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. The registered manager ensured any agency staff working at the service were block-booked to work at the home to ensure they didn’t work across different care settings.
We found the following examples of good practice:
The home had policies and procedures which staff followed to reduce the risk of the spread of infection, including the risk posed by any visitors. These procedures included conducting health screening checks when visitors arrived at the home, carrying out a COVID-19 test and ensuring they were provided with appropriate PPE during their visit. The home had also built a COVID-19-safe visiting room with it’s own external access for families to use, which helped minimise the risk of the spread of infection.
People and staff were regularly tested for COVID-19, in line with current national guidelines. Staff knew the signs which may indicate someone had been infected by COVID-19 and were aware of the steps to take to isolate people if they became symptomatic or received a positive test result. The home admitted people in line with national guidelines for care home admissions during the pandemic.
The home was regularly cleaned, including additional cleaning of high touch areas. The management team carried out regular infection control audits to help ensure people and staff were following safe practice. Staff received training in infection control as well as training in donning and doffing PPE. Their practice was routinely monitored by senior staff to ensure infection control risks were minimised.
There was a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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.
At this inspection we found that staff had received training and supervision in support of their roles, although improvement was required to ensure nursing staff consistently received clinical supervision and training specific to their roles, in support of people’s clinical needs. The registered manager was aware of the need to make improvements in this area and we saw plans in place to address these concerns.
There were sufficient staff deployed at the service to meet people’s needs, and the provider followed safe recruitment practices. People had mixed views about agency staff used by the service at short notice, but agency usage was reducing, with new staff having recently started work at the service and further new staff working through the recruitment process at the time of our inspection.
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely and appropriately. Risks to people had been assessed and staff were aware of the action to take to manage risks safely. People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff knew the types of abuse to look out for, and the action to take if they suspected abuse.
Staff sought consent from people when offering them support and followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) where people lacked capacity to make specific decisions for themselves. The provider had also sought to ensure that people were also only lawfully deprived of their liberty in accordance with the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) where this was in their best interests.
People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and were offered a choice of meals each day. The service catered for any specialist dietary requirements people had and followed guidance from healthcare professionals where appropriate, to ensure people were supported to eat and drink safely, and had sufficient nutritional intake. People were also supported to access a range of healthcare services when they needed them.
Staff treated people with care and consideration. We observed staff interacting with people in a friendly and attentive manner. People’s privacy and dignity were respected by staff. They were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. The service provided appropriate end of life care to people and sought feedback from people about their preferences for treatment at the end of their lives.
People had care plans in place which were person centred and reflected their individual needs and preferences. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis to ensure they were up to date. The service offered a range of activities for people to take part in and people told us they enjoyed the activities on offer.
The provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place which provided people with guidance on how to raise concerns. People told us they knew how to make a complaint and expressed confidence that the registered manager would address any issues they raised.
People and staff spoke positively about the registered manager and the management of the service. They told us the management team was a visible presence in the home, and looked to lead by example. Staff spoke positively about improvements that had been made to their ways of working since the arrival of the registered manager.
The provider sought people’s views through regular meetings and the use of surveys. We saw examples of improvements having been made at the service as a result of people’s feedback. Staff also conducted a range of checks and audits on aspects of the service which helped identify issues and drive improvements.