Kings Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 40 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion or consistently respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always ensure people received support in a way that promoted comfort and wellbeing. People's experiences indicated that their comfort, dignity and emotional wellbeing were not always placed at the centre of decision-making. Some people and relatives told us organisational decisions affecting people's daily lives were implemented without sufficient consultation. Concerns were also raised about restrictions on personalising bedrooms and arrangements within the home that some people felt prioritised appearance and presentation above individual preferences and comfort.
Feedback from people, relatives and staff suggested that staffing pressures and competing demands sometimes affected staff's ability to spend meaningful time with people. Some relatives described staff as caring and compassionate but frequently rushed, limiting opportunities for interaction, reassurance and emotional support. However, many people and relatives spoke positively about the caring nature of frontline staff. Comments included, "They take good care of you," "I can't fault the care," and "The staff are kind and supportive." Many relatives distinguished between concerns about the wider service and the compassion shown by care and nursing staff.
During the inspection, we observed numerous positive interactions between staff and people using the service. Staff spoke respectfully to people, offered reassurance and encouragement, and took time to engage in conversation. People appeared comfortable in staff's presence, and we saw examples of warm, compassionate care that promoted dignity and respect.
Although many interactions were positive, people's experiences were not consistently supported by a culture that always prioritised their comfort, wellbeing and individual preferences. This meant people could not always be assured they would experience care that consistently reflected kindness, compassion and dignity.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.
Care plans often identified people's emotional wellbeing needs, social interests, communication preferences and preferred routines. However, daily records frequently focused on physical care tasks and medication administration, with limited evidence of how emotional wellbeing, social engagement or personal goals were being supported.
For some people, communication needs and support required to reduce social isolation were identified within care plans but were not consistently reflected in daily care records. This increased the risk of task-based care rather than care centred on the whole person. People and relatives also told us decisions affecting life within the home were not always discussed with them. Some relatives felt organisational decisions were made without sufficient consultation with people who lived there.
However, many people told us staff knew them well and understood their likes, dislikes and routines. We observed staff using people's preferred names, engaging them in conversation and supporting them according to their individual preferences. Family involvement was encouraged and people were supported to participate in activities based on their interests.
 

The provider did not always promote people's independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.
People and relatives told us decisions affecting people were not always discussed or consulted on. One person told us changes within the home, including environmental arrangements, were often directed by the provider and that people had limited influence over decisions. A relative also raised concerns that restrictions had been placed on personal items and furnishings within bedrooms, which they felt limited people's ability to personalise their living environment.
During our inspection, we observed practices which reduced some people's ability to move independently during mealtimes. We observed, some people were encouraged to transfer from wheelchairs to dining chairs and mobility aids were removed from the immediate dining area. Feedback from people indicated some did not understand why their mobility aids were taken away, or how such decisions had been reached.
We also received feedback that decisions regarding furniture layouts and communal environments did not always appear to prioritise individual accessibility and independence. Some staff told us furniture was routinely returned to standard layouts despite concerns being raised about ease of movement and accessibility for some people. These findings indicated people were not always fully involved in decisions affecting their daily lives and did not always have as much choice and control over their environment as they would have wished.
However, people also described being offered choices in many aspects of daily life. We observed people choosing where they spent their time, whether they participated in activities and what they wanted to eat and drink. Care records contained information about people's preferences, routines and wishes, and relatives told us staff generally encouraged independence and supported people to maintain existing abilities wherever possible. Staff were observed respecting people's day-to-day choices and supporting them in accordance with their preferences.
Despite these positive examples, people could not always be assured their independence, choice and control would be consistently promoted in decisions affecting their care, treatment and living environment.
 

The provider did not listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. During a Short Observation For Inspection (SOFI), we saw a person request support to use the toilet at 11:30am. A member of staff was called to assist; however, the staff left to find additional help and the person was not assisted until approximately eight minutes later. By this time, the person had become incontinent and was visibly upset. This demonstrated that people did not always receive support at the point they needed it.
Some relatives also described delays when people required assistance. One relative told us their family member often experienced delays when using their call bell, while another felt staff were frequently rushed and unable to respond as quickly as they would like. Our review of call bell data showed frequent delays of up to 30 minutes before people were attended to.
We received information from a member of staff raising concerns that call bells were sometimes silenced before people received assistance. This reflected wider concerns regarding responsiveness and delays in meeting people's immediate needs.
However, we also observed many positive interactions throughout the inspection. Staff offered reassurance, encouragement and comfort to people, and several relatives told us staff were caring, attentive and willing to help when approached.
 

The provider did not effectively support or promote the wellbeing of staff. Staff were not consistently enabled to deliver person-centred care and did not always feel supported when raising concerns or seeking assistance. Staff described a workforce that felt unsupported and impacted by frequent management changes. Several staff members told us morale was low and that management support was not always available when concerns were raised. One member of staff said, "There has been no support since the manager left." Staff described feeling under pressure and said concerns they had raised were not always addressed or resolved and told us they did not feel valued or listened to. One member of staff described feeling "pressured and kept in a corner" and said they did not feel comfortable raising issues.
The instability in leadership and staffing had affected staff wellbeing and their ability to consistently deliver person-centred care. Staff reported increasing staffing challenges, reliance on agency workers and a lack of consistent management presence. These concerns were reflected in feedback from relatives who also described limited management visibility.
Additional staff feedback described a culture of blame and criticism from leaders, which staff said negatively affected morale. Staff told us communication from senior leaders was often negative and they felt unsupported when concerns were raised. Despite these concerns, staff spoke positively about their colleagues and the support they provided one another. We observed cooperative working between frontline staff during the inspection, and some staff described taking pride in the care they delivered, particularly in relation to supporting people at the end of their lives.