Prince Michael of Kent Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
At the last inspection on 23 February 2017 we found the service required Improvement with regard to protecting people from harm and keeping people safe. At this inspection we found that the service had worked extremely hard to improve the safety and welfare of people at the home and now demonstrated excellent outcomes for people.
The service had a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People felt safe and staff knew how to mitigate risks to people’s health and wellbeing. Medicines were managed safely and infection control practice adhered to. Safety checks and fire drills were completed appropriately.
People’s individual risk assessments in care records had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. Care records showed they were reviewed and any changes had been recorded when needed.
Staff demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding procedures and signs of possible abuse. They told us they reported any concerns to senior staff on duty or their manager and they were aware of the whistleblowing procedures if they needed to elevate any concerns externally to local safeguarding authorities.
Staff were very knowledgeable about people and were able to promptly identify changes in people’s needs.
Staff and people who lived at the home were knowledgeable in safety protocols and were provided with the opportunity of attending both fire safety and health and safety training to help ensure they were confident and able to maintain their own safety in case of an emergency.
People were looked after by enough staff, who were trained and supported to help meet peoples` individual needs.
Pre-employment checks were completed on staff before they were assessed to be suitable to look after people who used the service.
Staff were recruited through robust procedures which ensured that staff working at the home were of good character and were suitable to work with the people they would be supporting. People who used the service were involved in the recruitment process and gave feedback about the applicants which meant that they were able to engage with staff from very early stages and form important relationships.
People were supported to take their medicines safely by staff who had received training and had their competencies checked. People where they could were encouraged to self-medicate and participate in regular medicine reviews.
People`s consent to the care and support they received was obtained and staff worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for people who lacked capacity to make certain decisions to ensure that the care and support they received was in their best interest.
People told us and we observed that the service provided a healthy and varied diet and in sufficient amounts to maintain people`s health and well-being.
The environment has been created using imaginative and inspirational ideas with a particular focus on people who were living with dementia, to support and enable them to live safely and with minimal restrictions. All areas of the home had been created to provide a true reflection of people’s individual interests. Communal areas were creatively decorated to reflect people’s hobbies, past lives and their social interest. The home was maintained to the highest standard.
Staff told us they received regular training and updates to ensure their skills and knowledge remained current in relation to their job responsibilities. Staff were well supported through a range of methods including work based observations, team meetings and individual supervisions.
People told us that staff were flexible and responsive to their needs and preferences. People told us and we observed that the care and support they received met their needs and was personalised to suit each individual. Professionals involved in the service were positive about the service and how it operated.
People were offered a wealth of diverse, creative and stimulating activities both within the home and in the wider local community by a team of activity staff who were highly motivated and passionate about providing opportunities for people to continue to live a full and rewarding life.
The service was very well managed. There was clear and effective leadership at the service with staff having well defined roles and responsibilities. The management was open and transparent and was driven by the wishes of people they supported. The registered manager had introduced numerous innovative systems and processes which helped the service to operate in a very productive way. There were systems in place to monitor and manage the overall quality of the service and this included getting regular feedback from the people who used the service.
People were supported to give feedback through regular meetings and had a representatives to put forward their views. People told us they felt fully consulted and involved in all aspects of the running of their home.