Kings Court Care Home

Updated 13 March 2021

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.

As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 3 March 2021 and was announced.

Updated 13 March 2021

Kings Court Care Home 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 home provides accommodation for up to 37 older people. On the day of our inspection there were 31 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Kings Court Care Home was last inspected by CQC in November 2015 when the service was rated as Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good and met all the fundamental standards we inspected against.

People told us they felt safe and there were sufficient staff to meet people's needs. We found there was a consistent staff team who knew people well.

People received safe support with their medicines. We saw the home was clean and we spoke with the head housekeeper who explained their procedures in relation to upholding a clean, infection free environment.

Staff told us they felt well supported in their role; they received induction and training. Staff received supervision and appraisals.

People had choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. We saw mental capacity assessments were well completed.

People had risk assessments that described the measures and interventions to be taken to ensure people were protected from the risk of harm. The care records we viewed also showed us that people’s health was monitored and referrals were made to other health care professionals where necessary, for example: their GP and social worker.

Staff were aware of the importance of supporting people with good nutrition and hydration. People told us they enjoyed the food prepared by the kitchen staff at Kings Court.

People had access to healthcare services, in order to promote their physical and mental health. We saw the service worked well with community nursing services and the local G.P.

The premises were homely and suitable for people's needs. People were involved in decisions about the decoration and the provider had taken steps to make the environment more accessible in relation to people with memory issues. The environment and equipment was regularly checked and serviced.

There were detailed, person-centred care plans in place, so that staff had information on how to support people. ‘Person-centred’ is about ensuring the person is at the centre of everything and their individual wishes, needs, and choices are taken into account.

End of life care was well managed in partnership with community services and the management team told us they were proud to support people at the end of their life to remain in the Teesdale vicinity.

There were opportunities for people to participate in activities. This included crafts, reminiscing, sing a longs, chats, bingo and activities outside the home.

There was a complaints procedure in place, should anyone wish to raise a complaint. People told us that any issues would be addressed but no one raised any concerns with us.

There was a quality assurance system, which enabled the provider to monitor the quality of the service provided.

We received positive feedback about the registered manager, deputy manager, staff and the service as a whole. Comments from people, relatives, staff and visiting healthcare professionals indicated there was a positive and open culture within the service.