Royal Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Since our last inspection the care plans in place had improved, people’s needs were assessed, and care plans were updated regularly. These could be further improved by detailing more personalised information and ensuring risk assessments were updated regularly. The management team had recognised this, and the service was moving onto a new digital system at the time of our inspection. Staff worked closely with external professionals to ensure people led healthier lives and their needs were met. We received positive feedback from partners who told us the service had improved how they supported people since our last inspection. People told us they were given choices of food, and they enjoyed the food.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Where possible people and relatives were involved in their care planning. Relatives told us communication from the service had improved, and they were involved in their relatives’ care. A relative said, “They will let us know if there are any issues, we know [name] is getting the care they need.” Care plans detailed people's communication needs and people were given information in accessible formats. For example, 1 person used flashcards to assist them to communicate and make choices and menu choices were pictorial.

The management team told us where there may be any new admissions to the service in the future, systems were in place to gather and record people’s needs. Staff told us they had access to peoples care records and recorded people’s daily care.

People’s needs were assessed, and care plans were updated monthly. Some improvements were required to care records, such as ensuring risk assessments were regularly updated and including more personalised information. The management team had recognised the current care planning system was not person centred enough and were in the process of implementing a new digital system.

People and relatives told us they had their needs met and were happy with their support. People had regular access to a GP who visited the service weekly and staff worked closely with the practice team. We observed staff ensuring people were comfortable. Partners spoke positively about peoples care records and told us the staff team were more responsive. A professional said, “The care plans have improved, the information is now there, such as fluid intake and weights.” And “What we are advising is now being implemented by staff, it is so much better.”

Staff followed best practice guidelines and advice form professionals. For example, where people had nutritional risks, records evidenced people received fortified diets and had their weights monitored. Where people were at risk of pressure damage, records evidenced people were supported to reduce these risks and tissue viability nurses were involved in their care.

The service had a new quality team in place, this involved monitoring of peoples care and records, to ensure the service followed best practice guidance. The service used recognised risk assessment tools and baseline observations were carried out for people on a monthly basis.

People and relatives told us the service worked in partnership with external professionals. A relative said, “The Doctor comes, the home has really good relationships with the Doctor and Nurse practitioners. The chiropodist comes to do [name’s] feet.”

Staff worked closely with external professionals, to ensure people had their needs met. This included SALT, dieticians, chiropodists and social workers. The management team spoke highly of their working relationship with the local GP practice.

We received positive feedback from external professionals about how the service worked with them. They told us since our last inspection the communication had improved, and staff were now following their professional advice. For example, 1 health professional told us people’s weights had improved and this reflected how the staff were following their advice.

Digital care records were used and could be easily shared with external agencies where appropriate. Daily handovers were in place, which had improved the overall communication between the team.

People had access to a range of external professionals to improve their health and well-being. People told us they received a choice of meals, and they were happy with the food. One person said, “They make me an omelette if I don’t like what is on the menu.” People had access to snacks and freshly prepared milkshakes. We observed people being offered drinks throughout the day and mealtimes were relaxed. A relative said, “Staff give [name] a choice of meals, they also give them build up drinks and they have put on weight.”

People had access to a range of external professionals to improve their health and well-being. People told us they received a choice of meals, and they were happy with the food. One person said, “They make me an omelette if I don’t like what is on the menu.” People had access to snacks and freshly prepared milkshakes. We observed people being offered drinks throughout the day and mealtimes were relaxed. A relative said, “Staff give [name] a choice of meals, they also give them build up drinks and they have put on weight.”

Guidance was in place about people's dietary needs in kitchen areas and this was regularly checked and updated. People’s food preferences were recorded in their care plans and records also contained detail about how to support people with their health. We observed 1 person eating a banana, they told us, “I love bananas, I have 1 every day.”

People told us they were involved in their care and support. People were involved in meetings to discuss activities and how they would like to spend their time. These meetings could be further improved to involve discussions about other key topics. One person said, “It’s marvellous the comforts we have here. It’s absolutely lovely. The staff are very helpful.”

Staff told us that they used systems to record how people’s health and well-being is on a daily basis. Staff told us people were happy and a professional told us, “The feel of the home is so different now, they have put an activities staff in, and people seem much happier.”

The quality and management team monitored outcomes for people. Some people's bedrooms required redecoration; this was also requested via a relatives meeting. The provider had a refurbishment plan in place which was ongoing. Assisted bathing facilities were now in place which allowed people to choose if they preferred a bath or a shower.

We saw staff respecting people’s privacy and wishes and gaining consent from people. This included knocking on people's doors and asking people where they would like to sit.

Staff were trained and understood their roles in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and gaining consent. 1 staff said, “I have had training. If people lack capacity we still offer choices everyday. Everything depends on individual, we treat everybody the same in terms of choices. If people lack capacity, we use best interest decisions for people.”

People had their capacity assessed and where required; people had Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations in place. Where people had conditions placed on their DoLS, staff had met these conditions.