We carried out a review of the data available to us about Prince Edward Duke of Kent Court 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 Edward Duke of Kent Court, you can give feedback on this service.
Prince Edward Duke of Kent Court is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care for up to 50 people in one adapted building, some of whom may be living with dementia. There were 40 people living at the service at the time of our inspection.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
A new manager had been in post for six weeks when we carried out the inspection. In the short time they had been in post they had made significant changes to improve the culture and quality of the service. People, their relatives and staff were all positive about the attitude and values the new manager had shown. Staff were clear about the providers vision and values for the service and knew what is expected of them. Staff treated people with kindness, respect and compassion.
Risks to people were generally assessed and managed well. Where shortfalls in risk management were identified in relation to the stairs and hot radiators, the manager took immediate action to reduce the risk. People were supported in the least restrictive way to ensure they retained control over their lives and maintained their independence where ever possible.
Further work was needed to ensure staff worked in accordance with good practice guidelines to make sure people were supported to plan for their end of life care. Training was in the process of being developed to ensure staff were aware of how to meet people’s ‘protected characteristics’ such as age, disability, gender, race, religion and beliefs.
People using the service were supported to stay safe. Staff had good understanding of safeguarding procedures and how to report concerns. Medicines were managed safely. Where audits identified errors in the recording of people’s medicines and fridge temperatures, these had been investigated, and learning shared with staff to prevent further errors occurring. Systems were in place to prevent the spread of infection. The premises were clean, tidy and designed to meet the needs of older people, including those living with dementia. People and their relatives described the service as 'homely' and were aware of a major planned refurbishment of the premises.
There were enough competent staff on duty to support the needs of people using the service. Staff had received training which gave them the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles and provide effective care. Some training, such as manual handling and fire safety refreshers were out of date, however staff were knowledgeable about these subjects and we saw no poor practice.
People were supported to eat and drink to maintain a balanced diet, and were complementary about the food. An area the service excelled at was supporting people to continue to access hobbies and activities they had enjoyed throughout their life, including ice skating, walking groups, swimming and horse-riding. One person summed up what it was like living at Prince Edward Duke of Kent, stating “It is a lovely life, I am never bored.”
People’s care plans focused on what was important to them and were designed to ensure people received care, treatment and support in line with current legislation and good practice guidance. The service worked well with other professionals to ensure people had access to healthcare services. The service had taken an innovative approach, using virtual reality’ equipment, such as a computer-generated simulation of a three-dimensional image or environments to help people explore places and objects in a seemingly real or physical way, as well as interact with others.
The manager operated an open-door policy and encouraged people, and their relatives to discuss concerns. Complaints raised about the service were managed well and responded too in a timely manner. The manager worked well with other agencies to ensure they were following the most recent guidance and legislation. The service has a governance framework in place which has been used to identify what worked well and where improvements were needed.
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 08 September 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
There was a manager in post at the time of the inspection. 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. On the day of our inspection the service was being managed by two shift leaders (one on each unit), who were being supported by four members of staff on each unit. The manager, who was not on duty on the day of inspection arrived to support the team and was present throughout the inspection.
Staff knew how to protect people from the risks of abuse. They had received training and knew who to contact if they had any suspicions people were at risk of abuse. Robust recruitment procedures were in place. These helped minimise the risks of employing staff who were unsuitable to work with vulnerable people.
People's needs were met by ensuring there were sufficient staff on duty. People, visitors and staff told us they felt there were enough staff available to meet people's needs. During the inspection we saw people's needs being met in a timely way and call bells were answered quickly.
Risks to people's health and welfare were well managed. Risks in relation to nutrition, falls, pressure area care and moving and transferring were assessed and plans put in place to minimise the risks. For example, pressure relieving equipment was used when needed. Risk assessments were updated following any accidents or incidents, the incidents were then routinely analysed to look for patterns.
People's medicines were stored and managed safely. Medication policies and procedures were in place and senior staff had the skills to safely administer medicines
People's human rights were upheld because staff displayed a good understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Discussions with the registered manager indicated that where necessary people's capacity to make decisions had been assessed and decisions taken in their best interests.
Staff confirmed they received sufficient training to ensure they provided people with effective care and support. There was a comprehensive staff training programme in place and a system that indicated when updates were needed. Training included caring for people living with dementia, first aid and moving and transferring.
People were supported to maintain a healthy balanced diet and people told us there was a good choice of food. People were supported to maintain good health and had received regular visits from healthcare professionals.
People received personalised care and support that reflected their individual needs and requirements. Care plans provided detailed guidance for staff on how to meet people's individual needs, and included information about what was important to them. People were supported to pursue interests and spend time doing things they found enjoyable. There were regular activities available for people to participate in. People spoke positively about the service and care provided. People's needs were met by kind and caring staff. People's privacy and dignity was respected and all personal care was provided in private.
People's care plans contained all the information staff needed to be able to care for the person in the manner they wished. Care plans were reviewed regularly and updated as people's needs and wishes changed. People and their relatives were supported to be involved in planning and reviewing their care if they wished. We saw good interactions between staff and people living at the service. Staff took time to ensure people received any assistance they needed.
There was a positive and welcoming atmosphere at the service. Staff told us they thought there was an open and honest culture in the home. Relatives told us that they could visit at any time and were always made welcome. They also said that staff always kept them informed of any changes in their relative's welfare.
There was a positive and welcoming atmosphere at the service. Staff told us they thought there was an open and honest culture in the home. Relatives told us that they could visit at any time and were always made welcome. They also said that staff always kept them informed of any changes in their relative's welfare.
The registered manager was open and approachable. People were confident that if they raised concerns they would be dealt with. Staff spoke positively about the registered manager and said they felt well supported. People also knew the registered manager well and told us they were always available to speak to.
The management team promoted an open and fair culture within the service. People's relatives felt the management team was approachable and had confidence in their ability to deal with issues fairly. Staff understood what was expected of them, and felt supported and valued by the management team. The provider had developed quality assurance systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service people received.