King Edward Care Home

King Edward Care Home provides accommodation for up to 13 older people, including people living with dementia. At the time of the inspection 13 people lived at the home.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The building was clean and hygienic and staff were seen to wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). There were sufficient staff to meet people’s care needs. One staff member said, “We manage, the manager has done a great job to make sure we spend time with residents.” Staff were employed following a thorough recruitment process. Safeguarding training was mandatory for the manager to provide and staff were aware of the processes to follow to enable people to keep safe. A relative said, “It is a small home and I feel confident the staff look after [relative] and keep them safe.” Risks were assessed and carefully monitored to ensure individuals safety. People received their medicines safely.

The manager had auditing systems to maintain ongoing oversight of the service and make improvements where necessary. Surveys had been introduced for staff, people and their relatives. Quality assurance systems ensured people were able to give their views of the service. The manager and provider acted upon suggestions or ideas that were made by people, to ensure the service continued to improve.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 25/02/2019).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

Follow Up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

We found the following examples of good practice.

The provider had robust practices to reduce risks to people, staff and visitors from catching and spreading infection. Staff were trained on infection prevention and control. They completed frequent and thorough cleaning routines to reduce infection risks and kept the environment clean and hygienic. There was enough PPE for staff and any visitors. Staff were familiar with policies and procedures and Information about COVID-19.

People kept in touch with families by phone, emails and social media as well as visits. The provider had a new extension built to assist people’s friends, family and professionals to have socially distanced visits. The room was fitted with a hand washbasin and PPE and thoroughly cleaned between visits. All visitors were asked to complete a health screening form, have their temperature checked, take a COVID-19 test, wash and sanitise hands and were provided with PPE to wear throughout their visit. People and their relatives were praising of the staff, the care they provided, cleanliness of the home and infection control practices.

Senior staff completed risk assessments on and with each person supported and each staff member. These showed their specific needs in relation to COVID-19. People supported and staff were taking part in regular COVID-19 testing and had all been vaccinated against COVID-19. Any admission was expected to follow Public Health England guidance.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

King Edward Care Home is located in the North Shore area of Blackpool. The service can accommodate a maximum of 13 people of whose primary care needs are those of persons who live with dementia. At the time of our inspection visit there were 12 people who lived at the home.

People’s experience of using this service:

People who lived at the home told us they were happy with the care provided for them and staff were caring and compassionate. They told us staff were kind and attentive and spent time with them. Relatives spoken with during the inspection told us they were happy with the care provided and had no concerns about their family members safety.

We observed the daily routines and practices within the home and found people were treated equally and their human rights were respected.

Procedures were in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care or abusive practices.

Staff had been recruited safely, appropriately trained and supported. They had skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs.

Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care provided.

We saw there was an emphasis on promoting dignity, respect and independence for people supported by the service. They told us they were treated as individuals and received person centred care.

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 supported this practice.

People’s care and support had been planned proactively and in partnership with them. People felt consulted and listened to about how their care would be delivered. Care plans were organised and had identified the care and support people required. We found they were informative about care people had received.

Staff responsible for assisting people with their medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. People received their medicines as prescribed and when needed and appropriate records had been completed.

Meal times were relaxed and organised around people’s individual daily routines. People who required help to eat their meals were supported by caring, attentive and patient staff.

People were supported to have access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs had been met. The service worked in partnership with other organisations to ensure they followed good practice and people in their care were safe.

The services had a complaints procedure which was made available to people and their family when they commenced using the service. The people we spoke with told us they were happy with their service and had no complaints.

The registered mangers used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included regular audits and satisfaction surveys to seek their views about the service provided.

Rating at last inspection:

Good. (Report published 13 August 2016)

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated good overall.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme or if any issues or concerns are identified.

At the last inspection on 15 January 2014 the service was meeting the requirements of the regulations that were inspected at that time.

King Edward care home is located in the North Shore area of Blackpool. The service can accommodate a maximum of eleven people of whose primary care needs are those of persons who live with dementia. Accommodation is provided over two floors. There are nine single bedrooms and one shared bedroom, three of which provide en-suite facilities. The building has been adapted with a range of aids and adaptations in place to help people remain as independent possible. At the time of our inspection visit there were 11 people who lived at the home.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

We found recruitment procedures were safe with appropriate checks undertaken before new staff members commenced their employment. Staff spoken with and records seen confirmed a structured induction training and development programme was in place.

Staff received regular training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs.

Staff spoken with and records seen confirmed training had been provided to enable them to support people who lived with dementia. We found staff were knowledgeable about the support needs of people in their care.

We found the registered manager had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care or abusive practices.

The registered manager understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

The environment was maintained, clean and hygienic when we visited. No offensive odours were observed by the inspector. People visiting the home commented on the good standards of hygiene in place. One person said, “Lovely clean home, never smells.”

We found sufficient staffing levels were in place to provide support people required. We saw staff members could undertake tasks supporting people without feeling rushed. One person visiting the home said, “The staff are always available, friendly and helpful when I visit [relative].”

We found equipment used by staff to support people had been maintained and serviced to ensure they were safe for use.

We found medication procedures at the home were safe. Staff responsible for the administration of medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. Medicines were safely kept with appropriate arrangements for storing in place.

People who were able told us they were happy with the variety and choice of meals available to them. We saw regular snacks and drinks were provided between meals to ensure people received adequate nutrition and hydration. One person we spoke with said, “The meals are lovely. I look forward to meal times.”

People told us they enjoyed the activities organised by the service. These were arranged both individually and in groups.

The service had a complaints procedure which was made available to people on their admission to the home. People we spoke with told us they were happy and had no complaints.

Care plans were organised and had identified the care and support people required. We found they were informative about care people had received. They had been kept under review and updated when necessary to reflect people’s changing needs.

We found people had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs were met. One person visiting the home said, “They always keep me informed if [relative] has needed to see the doctor and the outcome of the visit.”

People visiting the home told us they were happy with their relatives care. One person said, “[Relative] is so well looked after. I cannot fault the staff they have a lovely caring attitude.”

The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included satisfaction surveys and care reviews. We found people were satisfied with the service they received.

Some people had limited verbal communication and understanding and were unable to hold a conversation with us because of their dementia condition. To help us understand their experiences of living in the home we observed the care they received and the interaction by staff

During our inspection we used a method called Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). This involved observing staff interactions with the people in their care. SOFI helps us assess and understand whether people who use services are receiving good quality care. We observed staff being responsive and attentive. This confirmed people who required support with their personal care were being treated with respect and dignity.

We looked at care planning, staffing levels and staff records. We also talked with residents about the home. Comments were positive and included, 'I have been here a while and cannot fault the place."

People we spoke with were satisfied with the amount of people on duty during the day and night. One staff member said, 'Yes we have enough staff around to be able to spend time with people.'

There were a range of audits and systems in place to monitor the quality of the service being provided.

We also spoke briefly and informally with other people in communal areas of the home during the visit. The majority of people engaged well with us although the conversation was brief and the content limited.

In order to try to understand what it was like for people living at the home we also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experiences of people who could not talk with us. We observed that people who used the service were supported to remain as independent as possible. We also saw that people were consistently treated with dignity and respect. For example, we saw staff offer assistance with personal care needs in a discreet and dignified manner and called the person by the name they preferred.