We carried out a review of the data available to us about Prince Regent House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Prince Regent House, you can give feedback on this service.
About the service
Prince Regent House is a residential care home providing personal care to seven people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to ten people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Right Support:
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were supported to pursue their interests and develop their skills in line with their aspirations. Staff supported people to be involved in maintaining their own good health and wellbeing and to access specialist health and social care support when needed. People were supported by staff who knew them well and demonstrated a clear interest in their wellbeing.
Right Care:
Staff worked in ways which promoted equality and diversity. People received culturally appropriate support. Staff understood people’s communication needs and how to meaningfully engage with them. People were supported by caring and considerate staff. Their care plans reflected their needs and preferences and guided staff to support them to live fulfilled lives. Staff treated people with dignity and respected their privacy. People were supported to maintain the relationships which were important to them.
Right Culture:
People and their relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care. Staff provided support which centred on meeting people’s preferences, needs and rights. The manager and staff worked openly with people and actively sought their views in order to help drive service improvements. The provider had quality assurance systems in place to help monitor the quality and safety of the service and to drive improvement where required.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was good (published on 8 June 2018).
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service service and to check if the service was applying the principles of 'Right support right care right culture.'
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.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
This inspection took place on 6, 10 and 16 April 2018 and was announced. At the last inspection in January 2016, the service was rated as overall Good but we found that most staff had not undertaken training about autism. During this inspection, we found improvements had been made.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
Prince Regent House accommodates up to ten people with learning disabilities and autism in one adapted building across three floors. At the time of this inspection there were nine people using the service.
There was a registered manager at the service. 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.
Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures. The provider had safe recruitment processes in place. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Risk assessments were carried out to mitigate the risks of harm people may face at home and in the community. There were systems in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. People were protected from the spread of infection. The provider analysed accidents and incidents and used this information as a learning tool to improve the service.
People’s care needs were assessed before they began to use the service to ensure the provider could meet their needs. Staff were supported with regular supervisions and annual appraisals to ensure they could deliver care effectively. People were supported to eat a nutritionally balanced diet and to maintain their health. The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the need to obtain consent before delivering care.
Staff described how they developed caring relationships with people and demonstrated they knew what people’s individual care needs were. People and their relatives were included in decision-making, care planning and care reviews. Staff were knowledgeable about equality and diversity. People were supported to maintain their independence and their privacy and dignity was promoted.
Care records were personalised and contained people’s preferences. The provider reviewed people’s care records regularly to ensure care was delivered appropriately. Staff understood how to deliver a personalised care service. The service had a complaints procedure and kept a record of compliments.
People and staff spoke positively about the registered manager. The provider had systems in place to obtain feedback from people, relatives and professionals about the quality of the service in order to make improvements where needed. People had regular individual meetings with staff to ensure they were happy with the support they received. Staff had regular meetings to keep them updated on care practice. The provider carried out various quality assurance checks to identify areas for improvement. The provider had invested in new technology to enhance the delivery of care.
We have made two recommendations about effective medicine quality assurance and end of life care.
The service provided support with personal care and accommodation to adults with learning disabilities who were on the autistic spectrum. They were registered to provide support for a maximum of ten people. Six people were using the service at the time of our inspection.
The service had 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.
The service had appropriate safeguarding procedures in place and staff were knowledgeable about their responsibilities with regard to safeguarding adults. Risk assessments were in place which included supporting people who exhibited behaviours that challenged the service in a safe manner. There were enough staff working at the service to promote people’s safety and pre-employment checks were carried out on prospective staff. Medicines were stored, recorded and administered in a safe manner.
Staff were supported in their role through regular training and supervision. However, most staff had not undertaken training about autism. The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were able to make choices about their daily lives. This included choices over what they ate and drank. People had access to healthcare professionals as required.
People told us they were treated in a respectful manner by staff and we saw staff interacted with people in a caring way. The service sought to promote people’s privacy, dignity and independence.
People and relatives told us the service was meeting their needs. Care plans were in place which included personalised information about how to support individuals. People had access to a range of activities within the community. The service had a complaints procedure in place which was accessible to people.
People that used the service, their relatives and staff told us there was an open management culture at the service and that the management team were helpful and supportive. The service had various quality assurance and monitoring systems in place. Some of these included seeking the views of people that used the service.