Prince Edward Duke of Kent Court

Updated 16 April 2020

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection team consisted of one inspector, an assistant inspector and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type

Prince Edward Duke of Kent Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service did not currently have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. A registered manager means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report. We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with nine people using the service, four relatives and three visitors during the inspection about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with 13 members of staff including the manager, deputy manager, the trainer, caterer, activities co-ordinator, senior and care staff. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We reviewed a range of records, including five people’s care records and multiple medication records. We looked at four staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision, and a variety of records relating to the management of the service, including audits, policies and procedures.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at training data and quality assurance records. We spoke with two professionals who regularly visit the service.

Updated 16 April 2020

About the 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.