• Care Home
  • Care home

King Edward House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

77-79 New Street, Ash, Canterbury, Kent, CT3 2BW (01304) 812953

Provided and run by:
R Cadman

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 8 December 2018

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 1 November 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the service is small, and people are often out during the day. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

The inspection team consisted of one inspector and assistant inspector.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once a year to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at the previous inspection report and notifications about important events that had taken place in the service which the provider is required to tell us by law. We used this information to help us plan our inspection.

We sought feedback from relevant health and social care professionals and staff from the local authority on their experience of the service. However, we did not receive any.

During the inspection, we spoke with five people who lived at the service. Not everyone at the service was able to verbally engage with the inspection process so we observed the interaction between people and staff in the communal areas. We were not able to speak to relatives of people, to gain their views and experiences. We looked at two people's care plans and the recruitment records of the last two staff who were employed by the service.

We spoke with the registered manager and two members of staff. We viewed a range of policies, medicines management, complaints and compliments, meetings minutes, health and safety assessments, accidents and incidents logs. We also looked at what actions the provider had taken to improve the quality of the service.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 8 December 2018

The inspection took place on 1 November 2018 and was announced.

King Edward House is a ‘care home’ for up to 5 people with learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection the people living at the service were also older people. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

There were 5 people living at the service at the time of our inspection. The service was set in a large house with a private garden which was based in a residential area. The accommodation was spread over 2 floors which one bedroom on the ground floor. There were two lounges and a kitchen dining room with a comfortable seating area.

At the last inspection, on 4 May 2016, the service had an overall rating of ‘Good’. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed.

At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.

People continued to be protected from abuse. Staff understood how to identify and report concerns. Medicines were managed safely, and people received their medicines when they needed them. Risks were assessed and there were actions in place to minimise risk and keep people safe.

There continued to be sufficient numbers of staff who had the skills and knowledge they needed to support people living at the service. Staff were appropriately supervised and supported. New staff had been recruited safely and pre-employment checks had been carried out.

Peoples’ care met their needs. Care plans continued to accurately reflect people’s needs and included information on their religious and cultural needs. We observed that staff followed the guidance in people’s care plans. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. Staff were aware of people’s decisions and respected their choices.

Staff continued to support people to maintain their health and wellbeing. People confirmed that they had access to healthcare services. People were supported to eat safely and had a choice over what they ate.

People were treated with respect, kindness and compassion. Their privacy was respected, and they were supported to lead dignified lives. People were supported to maintain their independence. There were systems in place to seek feedback from people to improve the service. People were encouraged to express their views and were listened to.

The service was clean and the setting pleasant and welcoming. The building had been adapted to meet people’s individual needs. People had chosen the decoration for their room and the shared areas. Staff were aware of infection control and the appropriate actions had been taken to protect people.

The service was well-led. People knew the registered manager well. Staff told us that they were happy at the service and were proud to work there. The service was regularly checked to identify where improvements were needed, and actions were taken.

Incidents were recorded, investigated and acted upon. Lessons learnt were shared and trends were analysed. The service worked in partnership with other agencies. The registered manager was well informed about best practice and shared this learning thought the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.