Prince Michael of Kent Court

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

We assessed all quality statements in the effective key question and found areas of good practice. Before people moved into the home, the provider carried out comprehensive assessments of people before they moved to the service. People's nutritional needs had been met and people told us they were happy with the menu. The staff regularly reviewed people's needs to make sure information was up to date and any changes were recorded. The staff were well supported by the management team and each other.Staff kept records which evidenced people had regular appointments with different healthcare professionals and that recommendations from these professionals were followed. Senior staff had assessed people's mental capacity and had made applications for DoLS authorisations as needed. They had information about people's legal representatives and those who should be involved in making decisions in people's best interests.

This service scored 83 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home. The assessment was very detailed and included background information about their histories and how they would like care to be provided. for example, if people would like their care provided by a male or female carer. The documentation showed that all aspects of a person's needs were considered including people’s characteristics identified under the Equality Act and other equality needs such as people's cultural and religious needs. One health professional confirmed there was a positive partnership between them and staff, and they felt staff had the necessary skills to recognise if people needed support. People told us they received good care and their needs were met. One relative told us, " [Person] had a [health problem] they let us know, they just seen to care about her and want to make her better, all seem so caring."

If people were at risk of pressure injury there was clear guidance in place to reduce the risk and monitoring, such as repositioning charts, were in place to ensure the risk to people was managed. We saw evidence that timely referrals were made to the district nurse team in the event of any skin integrity issues.

People were involved in planning their care and this was evidenced by the detailed information in their care plans about things that were important to them. There was a diverse menu in place and people were offered choices and people’s religious beliefs were catered for. Throughout our site visit we observed staff supporting and encouraging people to drink.

We observed people were offered a choice of meals that looked appetising. People told us they were happy with the food, comments included, " Food is quite good, never had a meal which was not satisfying, we get enough veg, not so much fruit " and "Food is always hot, the chef will put on something else for you if I want something different."

Staff were kind and caring during mealtimes, we observed staff taking time with people, explaining what was available and if they have been supported to eat, they were asked what they would like to eat first. People ate at their own pace and there was a lovely atmosphere as staff chatted with people during lunch. People were provided with specific cutlery to make eating and drinking easier if they needed this to support their independence at mealtimes.

People’s needs and preferences in relation to food and drinks were clearly identified through records. Where people were at risk of malnutrition or dehydration their intake was monitored. The home had a dynamic approach to this, responding to people’s weight and taking swift action to trigger monitoring if the person’s weight fell below their established baseline, and withdrawing monitoring once their weight had stabilised, making referrals to the dietitian or the adult speech and language therapy (SALT ) team as necessary.

People and their relatives gave us examples of where staff worked with other services. For example, a relative told us about the service working with a health professional when their loved one was unwell.

Staff described working well together and felt the team and management were supportive. They confirmed they felt involved and were kept up to date with changes in people’s care needs. This was also confirmed by a health professional who told us, that staff worked well together.

We observed staff working well together to meet people’s needs. For example, we saw staff stepping in to support a person when they had not accepted support from a colleague. The change in staff deescalated the situation and the person accepted support from the second member of staff. Daily handovers were in place to discuss people’s care and care delivery, and staff had access to people’s care records.

People had access to good care and support. There were visits from healthcare professionals and people confirmed if they needed to see a health professional this happened. We saw from records that people had access to healthcare services as required. For example, one person had been referred to the District Nursing team when they had sustained a skin tear. The GP was consulted when another person had experienced an increase in distress resulting in physical and verbal reactions. The staff worked with the GP to decide the best course of action to reduce the distress the person was experiencing.

One health professional told us, "Staff are proactive, they notice if for example a person’s MUST scores gets low, they are sharp at spotting when people are not looking great " and " Staff are good they follow up". The Malnutrition Universal Screening tool is a five-step stool that screens adult for malnutrition. The registered manager worked with healthcare professionals to ensure people’s needs were met. For example, when a change in policy meant that one specific health professional would no longer visit the home, people would have to make an appointment at the surgery, a health professional said, " This did not apply to the home. Staff were knowledgeable and experienced and only called for support when required. "

Staff were required to monitor people’s care and support, and this was reviewed by the management team. Records were completed to support staff to monitor and improve outcomes. For example, where people were at risk of weight loss and malnutrition, their intake was monitored and where necessary referrals made or action to address their dietary needs was implemented. Where people were at risk of dehydration, we saw their intake was monitored to ensure they drank enough.

People told us staff gave them choices and always explained what they were doing before giving care. People understood their rights regarding consent to the care and treatment they were offered.

We observed staff asking people for consent before they provided care. Staff did this in a quiet and dignified way, and this clearly meant a lot to people as evidenced by the way they responded to staff and went about their daily lives.

The management team and staff told us they understood their responsibilities regarding the Mental Capacity Act (MCS) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager explained how best interests’ meetings were held and decisions were made for people who lacked mental capacity in any particular area. Where people lacked capacity the registered manager and staff team worked with the person, their relatives, and professionals to make decisions in their best interest. We saw mental capacity assessments, reviews and best interests’ meetings took place as required. Within people’s care plan people’s consent to treatment was obtained and recorded in their care plans.