Archived: Prince Michael of Kent Court

Updated 5 February 2015

The inspection team consisted of an inspector and an Expert by Experience, who had experience with older person’s residential services. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.

The inspection was unannounced.

Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service including statutory notifications and enquiries relating to the service. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We spoke with three local authorities who commission services from the home to seek their feedback on the care provided.

During the inspection we spoke with 12 people and six relatives of people who used the service. We also spoke with two professional visitors, the registered manager and eight members of staff. We carried out observations throughout the inspection. We observed how staff interacted with people and also how people were supported.

We also looked at three care files, staff duty rosters, three staff files, a range of management records. These included quality audits, minutes for various meetings, resident surveys, a staff training matrix and management records for complaints, accidents & incidents, safeguarding, and health and safety.

Updated 5 February 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

The inspection on 18 and 21 July 2014 was unannounced which meant the provider and staff did not know we were visiting. We previously carried out an unannounced inspection in January 2014. At this inspection we found the service was not meeting the requirements of the regulations. We found that required documentation had not been maintained as required, and also that there were insufficient numbers of staff available to support people’s needs. We also found that people were not always receiving their medicines as prescribed. At this inspection we found the provider had made the required improvements.

Prince Michael of Kent Court is a residential care home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to 55 older people. At the time of our inspection a registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law, as does the provider.

People felt safe and were happy with the care and support provided. Systems were in place to help ensure people were kept safe. There were enough staff available to support people and there was always staff available to support them to go out into the community.

The staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). MCA is the legislation which protects people who are unable to make decisions for themselves.

People’s medicines were ordered, stored, administered and disposed of safely.

People we spoke with all told us that they felt the staff supported them well. Staff we spoke with told us they were supported positively by the manager to do their job. They told us they received a range of training, and met frequently with their line manager to review their performance.

People were overall supported to eat sufficient quantities of food. The environment at lunch was relaxed and sociable. Overall staff were generally attentive to people, however we did note that three people who ate in their rooms left their plates untouched.

People had access to a range of health care professionals including GP’s and district nurses. They told us they were referred to these services whenever the need arose without delay.

People received care promptly from healthcare professionals when they needed this. There were established links with healthcare professionals which included community nursing teams, GP’s and speech and language therapists. These ensured people’s health needs were addressed.

People had positive relationships with staff and management and were supported to maintain their relationships with their families. People were supported to pursue their individual activities and interests.

Staff listened to how people wished their care to be delivered and they were treated with dignity and their privacy was respected. A range of activities were provided to people at Prince Michael of Kent Court to ensure people were not socially isolated.

People told us that the management and staff team were approachable and responsive to their concerns and also compliments.Where complaints were made these were responded to and actioned appropriately. People who used the service, their relatives, and other health professionals were positive in their feedback about Prince Michael of Kent Court. Quality assurance systems were in place which included seeking the views of people that used the service.

There was an open relationship between the manager, people and staff and the manager listened and responded positively to feedback or suggestions.

There was a clear vision in the home that depicted what they were trying to achieve that was understood by the staff we spoke with.