Kings Court

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

Although most people were happy with the care they received we saw some people lacked stimulation and interaction with staff. The registered manager said they put people in the centre of care and worked with families to ensure people had appropriate care and were always given choice. The registered manager worked with other health care services and the local authority as necessary. When staff spoke to people they were kind and calm. People and their families could attend residents’ meetings or complete surveys as a way to feedback on care.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us care was as they wanted it. A person said, “I do what I want here. I get up when I want to. They [carers] help me to get washed, dressed and showered at a good time for me.” The chef visited one person in their room to present them with their favourite chocolate bar. He stopped to talk with them and unwrapped the bar for them.

The registered manager told us was a robust assessment process completed before people came to live at the home. The registered manager said, “We put the residents in the centre and work with the family, historical, social, past lives, we go to the family, and we always provide choices.” However, there was no evidence to show how, or if, people and/or their relatives were involved in any assessments. Activities were organised for people on most days. One staff member said, “I speak to the person, get to know them, ask what they do and don’t like with regard to activities, to understand their preferences.”

Although people told us care was personalised we saw little engagement by staff. Some people were sat in the first floor lounge on the day of the inspection. There was little engagement or conversation with staff. The television was on and most people were sat quietly in their armchairs with no focus. We did not see staff knock on people’s doors before entering. One member of staff came into a person’s bedroom during the morning. They placed some clean towels on a chair. The staff member did not knock on the door and did not say one word to the person during their brief visit. Inspectors spoke to the registered manager about this at the time of the assessment and he told us he would address the issues with staff.

People did not have complaints about the care provision and how they were helped to remain connected to the local community or past friends. One person talked about their faith and said they had attended church all their life. They told us, “I don’t go to church now, I am too old. The church does come here though and they hold a service downstairs. I can’t get down to attend that, but I do know that someone would come up to see me if I wanted them to.”

The registered manager told us that the local authority sent reports and care information, but this was sometimes out of date. The registered manager said he talked to families and people to ensure care plans remained current. The registered manager said, ““We put the residents in the centre and work with the family, historical, social, past lives, we go to the family, and we always provide choices.” However people and relatives had told us they had not always felt this was the case, and communication could be improved.

The local authority worked with the service as necessary including carrying out quality assurance and performance visits. There were no concerns raised by them about the service.

There were processes in place to ensure care information was communicated when a person left the home, for example to go into hospital. The registered manager used the local authority Information Sharing Guide as a policy to ensure best practice.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

When staff spoke to people they were kind and calm. One person asked a member of staff, “Where is my Mum?” and staff member responded appropriately to reassure the person and redirect them. We asked about how people could feed back anything they would like to be changed. A person said, “Well we have residents’ meetings very occasionally.”

Feedback from staff and leaders- 3 (AF) The registered manager said that staff sometimes reported any complaints from conversations they had with people. These could be discussed during supervision. The registered manager said, “My door is always open. Residents’ meetings are an opportunity for people to talk, maybe about a different type of food they want or an activity. They make suggestions.”

There were residents’ meetings, and resident and family surveys, carried out to obtain people’s feedback.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.