You are here

Kingfisher Court Care Centre Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 October 2017

This inspection was carried out on 4 September 2017. The inspection visit was unannounced.

Kingfisher Court Care Centre is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 40 older people and people with dementia and physical disabilities. On the day of our inspection there were 39 people using the service.

At the last Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection on 26 February 2015, the service was rated Good in all domains.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs, however at times staff were rushed and their interactions with people were task focused.

People could be assured that they would receive their medicines as prescribed by their doctor. People’s health needs were met and where necessary they had access to health professionals.

Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe. Risks were assessed and measures put in place to prevent avoidable harm. Staff understood how to raise concerns about people’s safety if they needed to. The provider followed safe recruitment practices.

People were supported by staff who had received training and support to meet their needs. Staff felt supported and their competency in their role was checked.

Our observation of the lunch time service was that it was chaotic at times and that people sat for a long time in the dining room before their meal was served. Records did not reflect that drinks or snacks were served over a 24 hour period. Where people had dietary requirements, these were met and staff understood how to provide these.

People had consented to the care they received. The service supported people in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act. People’s mental capacity to consent to their care had been assessed where there was a reasonable belief that they may not be able to make a specific decision.

Staff at all levels treated people with kindness and compassion. People were supported to maintain their independence. However at times people’s dignity was not protected.

The care needs of people had been assessed and were regularly reviewed to ensure they continued to be met. Staff had a clear understanding of their role and how to support people who used the service.

People had access to activities so that they could follow their interests and remain active if they wanted to.

The provider had sought feedback from people and their relatives and staff about the service. People and staff felt that the deputy manager was approachable and action would be taken to address any concerns they may have.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service being provided and to drive improvement. These had not always been effective in identifying when records relating to people’s fluid intake had not been accurately maintained. Where systems had identified areas of concern, action had been taken to address these in a timely manner.

The provider was aware of their responsibility to report events that occurred within the service to CQC and external agencies. There was not a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. It is a requirement of the provider’s registration that there is registered manager in post.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 October 2017

The service remains Good

Effective

Good

Updated 12 October 2017

The service remains Good

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 12 October 2017

The service was not consistently caring.

Staff were often rushed and their interactions with people were task led.

People�s dignity was not always maintained.

People were supported to maintain their independence and relationships with people that were important to them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 October 2017

The service remains Good

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 October 2017

The service remains Good