You are here

Archived: The King William Care Home Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 7 June 2016

The inspection visit took place on 16 and 17 February 2016 and the first day was unannounced.

The home is registered to provide accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care. The service does not provide nursing care. At the time of our inspection there were 26 people living there.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection, and they were present on the two visits we undertook. 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.

Medicines were not always managed safely. People were satisfied that they received their medicines as prescribed.

People were protected from the risk of harm or abuse. Staff understood how to recognise and respond to concerns. Risks associated with people’s care needs were assessed and measures put in place to reduce the likelihood of harm occurring.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs in a timely manner. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs, and supported people to access healthcare services promptly. People told us staff cared for them in a kind and compassionate way. People were treated in a manner which was dignified and upheld their rights.

The provider had procedures and checks in place to ensure that staff were of good character and fit to work in a care environment. Staff had an induction period at the start of their employment and received ongoing training.

The provider met the principles and legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet, and they told us they enjoyed the variety of meals and snacks offered.

People felt that the care and activities offered were responsive to their needs. People were supported to maintain relationships which were important to them, and staff knew people’s individual preferences well.

People were involved in planning and reviewing their care, and felt able to raise concerns or make a complaint. The provider sought people’s views about their care and took action to improve the service in response to this.

The provider had systems in place to monitor and review care, but this did not always identify when people’s care had not been reviewed recently. The provider’s policies and procedures did not always reflect current professional guidance.

People, relatives and staff felt supported to make suggestions to improve care or raise concerns.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 7 June 2016

The service was not consistently safe.

Medicines were not always stored securely. People felt safe, and were supported by staff who knew how to keep them from risk of preventable harm. The provider had sufficient staff to meet people�s needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 June 2016

The service was effective.

People received care from staff who were knowledgeable about their needs. Staff received ongoing supervision and training to ensure their skills met the requirements of the provider.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 June 2016

The service was caring.

People felt the staff supported them in a way that was caring, kind and respected their dignity. People were encouraged to make their own decision about their care and lifestyle choices.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 June 2016

The service was responsive.

People were encouraged to contribute to the planning and reviewing of their care. The provider encouraged a range of activities for people to choose from, and people told us they enjoyed these. The provider had a complaints procedure in place and people felt able to express their views about care.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 7 June 2016

The service was not consistently well-led.

The provider had systems in place to monitor and review care, which identified when people�s care had not been reviewed recently, but action was not always taken to review this. The provider�s policies and procedures did not always reflect current professional guidance. People, relatives and staff felt able to contribute to developing the quality of the service.