Archived: K.R. Court Limited

Not everyone living at King Richard Court was receiving personal care. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care', help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do receive personal care we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection there were four people receiving personal care.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People continued to be treated with empathy and kindness and their individuality was respected. The staff were friendly, caring and compassionate. Positive relationships had been developed between the people and staff.

Personalised care plans were in place, which enabled staff to provide consistent care and support in line with people's personal preferences and choices. People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition.

People continued to receive safe care. Staff were appropriately recruited and there were sufficient staff to meet people's needs. People were protected from the risk of harm and received support to take their prescribed medicines safely.

The care that people received continued to be effective. Staff had access to the support, supervision and training that they required to work effectively in their roles. Development of staff knowledge and skills was encouraged.

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 place supported this practice.

The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The provider was committed to developing the service and actively looked at ways to continuously improve the service. There were effective quality assurance systems and audits in place; action was taken to address any shortfalls.

People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and the provider had implemented effective systems to manage any complaints that they may receive.

There was a registered manager in post 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.

People had care plans that were personalised to their individual needs and wishes. Records contained detailed information to assist care workers to provide care and support in an individualised manner that respected each person's individual requirements and promoted treating people with dignity.

People told us that they felt cared for safely in their own home. Staff understood the need to protect people from harm and abuse and knew what action they should take if they had any concerns. Staff understood their role in caring for people with limited or no capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staffing levels ensured that people received the support they required safely and at the times they needed. The recruitment practice protected people from being cared for by staff that were unsuitable to work in their home.

People received care from staff that were kind and caring. Staff had the skills and knowledge to provide the care and support people needed and were supported by a management team which was receptive to ideas and committed to providing a high standard of care.

The registered manager was approachable and had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. Staff and people were confident that issues would be addressed and that any concerns they had would be listened to.

We spoke with two staff members that worked at the service who told us they enjoyed their work and felt well supported in their roles.

We found that people's needs were assessed and a care plan put in place to ensure that people's needs were met. We saw that people had signed a contract with the provider that detailed the amount of care that they would receive and the amount that they would be charged.

We found that there were appropriate arrangements in place to ensure that people were protected from the risks associated with the management of medicines and that the provider carried out checks on staff to ensure they were suitable for their roles. We saw that an annual quality assurance questionnaire had been carried out with people that used the service and the feedback was extremely positive.

We spoke with a relative of a person who used the service who told us: - "I couldn't manage without them, I've no concerns, they're brilliant".

We spoke with two staff members who told us "We've got a good relationship with the people who we provide support to" and "we provide the sort of care that I would want my own parents to have".

We found that people who used the service had detailed care and support plans and that risks had been assessed. We found that copies of these were available in the main office and also in people's own homes. We found that the provider had a detailed complaints policy and that people also had a copy in their home. However, we found concerns around the documentation and records when staff members had helped people who used the service with their medication.