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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has been changed to Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People were aware of events due to take place in the home as there was a well curated noticeboard in the entrance hall. A regular newsletter ensured friends and family were able to keep updated on everything happening at the home. Clear complaints policies meant people could raise concerns easily with the registered manager.

People’s care plans were started before they came to live at the home and staff continued adding details about support needed as they got to know people after they moved in. Care plans were detailed and well set out so that staff could easily see how people wished to be cared for and any risk mitigations needed.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People had access to the care, support and treatment they needed. Staff took part in Oliver McGowan training, which is training for learning disability and autism awareness. The home did not cater for anyone with a learning disability but the registered manager saw the importance of staff being prepared to support everyone in ways they needed it.

Care plans were frequently updated and the registered manager showed us how care plans would be rewritten while people waited for appointments, for example with the speech and language therapy team. The registered manager ensured people had regular dental healthcare checks as they recognised the risk of poor mouth hygiene, such as pain leading to poor nutrition.

People had person centred care. The registered manager understood the need to offer individualised care for people and they communicated this to the staff. The registered manager explained how notes that came from hospital were only ever a guide as people reacted differently in different settings.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People were able to communicate with staff in various ways, including in various languages. Staff actively sought help from family members as to the best ways to speak with people from various cultures. Both the people at the home and the staff team were diverse. People at the home with sight loss were able to join in activities as the activities coordinator ensured appropriate things for them to do, they had access to audio books if required.

We discussed outcomes for people and the registered manager told us how the care they had tailored for a person had meant they had become much calmer, needed less medication and been able to go out to meet with family, which they had not been able to do before they went to live at King’s Court.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People were involved in their care and the plans for their care including choices for the end of their lives. Care plans were clear, there were notes when ‘Do not resuscitate’ orders were in place, and featured information for end of life, and after death care, such as funeral plans.

The registered manager had ongoing plans for improvement for care at the home, for example they told us about plans to formalise the family meetings to discuss care plans (where people wanted family involvement) to ensure they happened every six months. We saw evidence families were involved in people’s care planning.