Kings Court Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 79 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People were involved in their care and support planning and were invited to give regular feedback about their care. We saw people had personalised bedrooms where requested. The manager told us, “One resident wanted a full refurbishment of her room. She chose the wall colour, curtains, and overall design. Our maintenance team completed the work exactly to her vision, and she is now very happy with her personalised space.” We saw feedback from the person following this refurbishment, where they said they were very pleased with the refurbishment and particularly liked the colour scheme, which they found soothing and calm.

Additionally, people had information within their care and support plans about their likes, dislikes, and preferences.

The provider had an exceptional understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Leaders provided an example of how they had advocated for a person whose funding was unexpectedly stopped. We were told “One of our residents required 1 to 1 care due to complex needs. When their funding was unexpectedly withdrawn, we made the decision to continue providing the care despite the financial strain, because we knew how settled and safe [person] felt at Kings Court. We worked closely with the local authority, maintained regular communication, and submitted all requested documentation. Our detailed records and persistent advocacy led to a successful outcome: [person’s] funding was reinstated, and [they were] able to remain in the home [they] loved. This was a win-win a great result for [person’s] wellbeing and for the stability of our service.”

Leaders also explained how they gathered information from a range of sources before a person moved into the service, so staff had a good understanding of people’s needs to support integration into the service. They explained they also sought information from relevant healthcare professionals prior to people moving into the service and this was shared with staff. Leaders said, “Admissions are completed before 4pm to allow time for a full handover to the supporting staff team.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People had detailed information within their care plans about how any communication needs and preferences. Staff told us the service’s activities team had created visual communication aids for people who were unable to verbally communicate, and we observed an example of this being used effectively during our onsite visit. Leaders gave an example of how they met a person’s communication needs who did not speak English, “We always [purposely] ensure that at least one staff member in the building speaks [this language].” They explained, that as a result, the person’s confidence had increased, and they were less distressed. Leaders told us, “When [person] first arrived at the home they very unsettled and lost. There was significant trust issue as [person] was in unfamiliar place and did not understand the reasoning behind it…After 6 weeks [person] was a different person and all MDT could see that as well as the family.”

We saw evidence from a healthcare partner to support this. They also praised the service for the way they had supported the person to settle into the service. We also saw feedback from the person’s relative who stated the person’s condition has improved ‘immensely’ since they moved to the service.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People and relatives told us they knew how to raise any concerns and were confident leaders would respond appropriately. The complaints procedure was displayed throughout the service, and records demonstrated complaints had been investigated and responded to, including any actions the provider had taken as a result. Staff gave examples of how they had made changes following feedback from people, such as changing menus, activities, and introducing a communal ‘quiet area’ for certain times of the day so that people could relax without background noise.

There were regular opportunities for people to provide feedback about their care, in ways which were tailored to individuals. For example, the service supported people with their communication needs to enable them to feedback about their care. People told us things changed as a result of their feedback, and we saw many examples of where these changes had been made. For example, we were told, “Residents shared that they’d like to go to the pub more often. We responded by securing a pub membership and now organise monthly visits, which have become a highlight for many.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People had equipment in place where needed to support their accessibility, and the environment of the service also supported this. People told us they were able to access care and treatment, including from outside professionals, when they needed it.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Leaders were alert to inequalities some people face and took steps to address this. For example, they told us they sought feedback from people who were unable to access communal areas, by visiting them in their rooms. Staff ensured people who were unable to verbally communicate had visual communication aids to reduce inequalities. We also reviewed feedback from a healthcare partner which stated, “The team have collectively done so well to ensure [person] is supported with dignity, maintaining his individuality as well as respecting his culture and beliefs.” Staff had completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People had information about their end of life wishes recorded in their care plans. Staff said they had completed end of life training and felt confident supporting people at the end of their life. We reviewed a compliment from a relative where they praised the staff team for how their relative was supported at the end of their life.