King Charles Court

Updated 19 November 2020

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.

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

This inspection took place on 4 November 2020 and was announced. The service was part of a thematic review which is seeking to identify examples of good practice in infection prevention and control.

Updated 19 November 2020

This unannounced comprehensive inspection took place on the 12 December 2017. The last comprehensive inspection took place on the 29 September 2015. The service was meeting the requirements of the regulations at that time. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

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. King Charles Court is a care home with nursing which offers care and support for up to 30 predominately older people. It is situated in the town of Falmouth. There are two floors accessed by a passenger lift. Where floors are split there is a stair lift. Each person has their own room which has en-suite facilities. There are two bathrooms with additional toilets located in both services. There is a lounge and dining area on the ground floor. At the time of the inspection there were 27 people living at the service. Some of these people were living with dementia.

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

We observed staff providing support to people throughout our inspection visit. We saw they were kind, patient and treated people with dignity and respect.

People who lived at the service and their visitors told us they were happy living at the service and felt safe in the care of staff supporting them. One person said, “Nothing is too much trouble for them [staff].”

People visiting the service told us staff were attentive, kind and caring towards their relatives. They said their relatives were getting the best care possible and staff went above and beyond their expectations with the care provided. Comments included, “Absolutely excellent couldn’t wish for more,” “So safe always feel we can go away knowing [person’s name] is cared for” and “We chose this home because we knew they really care for residents living here.”

The service had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care or abusive practices.

Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care provided.

The premises were regularly checked and maintained by the provider. Equipment and services used at King Charles Court were regularly checked by competent people to ensure they were safe to use.

The environment was warm throughout, homely and welcoming. People frequently told us this was a ‘homely’ place to live and visit. People’s rooms were personalised to reflect their individual tastes. As Christmas was approaching some people had been supported to put up Christmas decorations in their rooms. The focus of the service was to treat people with kindness, compassion and respect and this was witnessed throughout the inspection.

The design of the building and facilities were appropriate for the care and support provided. One of two bathrooms was currently being used for storage of equipment. However, the registered manager informed us of the plans to redesign this bathroom in the near future so it is more suitable for people with limited mobility.

People visiting the service told us they were made welcome by friendly and caring staff and had unrestricted access to their relatives. They told us they were happy with the care provided and had no concerns about their relatives safety.

The service had sufficient staffing levels in place to provide the support that people required. People told us staff were responsive and available when they needed them.

Staff had been recruited safely, appropriately trained and supported. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs.

Risks in relation to people’s daily lives were assessed and planned for to minimise the risk of harm. The service held appropriate policies to support staff with current guidance. Mandatory training was provided to all staff with regular updates provided. The registered manager had a record which provided them with an overview of staff training needs.

Accidents and incidents were being recorded and reported and any lessons learned were shared with staff. The service learned by any mistakes and used this as an opportunity to raise standards. There was a culture of openness and honesty and staff felt able to raise concerns or suggestions.

People's rights were protected because staff acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The principles of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were understood and applied correctly.

The way medicines were managed was safe. Staff responsible for the administration of medicines had the necessary competency and skills required. Medicines were stored securely and safely.

There was an emphasis on promoting dignity, respect and independence for people who lived at King Charles Court. There were examples of people improving and regaining their mobility. In one instance, a person was able to return to their own home, through the determination of staff and with the support of other health professionals. People told us staff treated them as individuals and delivered person centred care. Care plans confirmed the service promoted people’s independence and involved them in decision making about their care.

Meals were appetising and people were offered a choice in line with their dietary requirements and preferences. Where necessary staff monitored what people ate to help ensure they stayed healthy.

The service had safe infection control procedures in place and staff had received infection control training. Staff wore protective clothing such as gloves and aprons when needed. This reduced the risk of cross infection.

There were a range of quality assurance arrangements at the service in order to raise standards and drive improvements. For example, audits to ensure quality in all areas of the service were checked, maintained, and where necessary improved. However, people told us that the organisation did not always keep them informed of changes occurring in a timely way. We have made a recommendation about this.

The registered manager, deputy manager and team leaders engaged with all stakeholders of the service. People’s views were taken into account through regular communication and surveys. The results of the most recent survey had been positive.

There was a system in place for receiving and investigating complaints. People we spoke with had been given information on how to make a complaint and felt confident any concerns raised would be dealt with to their satisfaction.