Queens Court

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We received mixed feedback as to whether people thought they were supported with kindness and dignity. Some relatives told us their loved ones were not treated with respect, while others commented that the staff were caring. We observed people being treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives in relation to how they felt people’s support with kindness, compassion and dignity. One relative told us their loved one’s dignity was not always respected. They commented, “They do not look after my loved one properly, they are always dirty when I come to visit them. I’ve had to ask for gloves to do the personal care myself as they had not done it.” Other comments included, “The staff are very caring.”, “The staff treat me very good.”, “The staff have respected my loved one’s dignity.” And “They look after my loved one here, the staff are lovely.”

People were supported to meet their cultural and religious needs. The chef understood people’s dietary needs and preferences. They told us they prepared meals for people with diverse needs. These included halal, pescatarian and vegetarian options. Staff we spoke with told us about the people they supported and their interests and preferences. Feedback received from people and their relatives on how they were treated was not always positive.

A visiting professional told us that a person’s family had just commented to them that their loved one was beautifully cared for. However, feedback received from people and their relatives on how they were treated was not always positive.

During this assessment, was saw staff treat people with dignity and respect. Staff knocked on people’s doors before entering and spoke to people using their preferred names. We witnessed positive and caring interactions between staff and people. Staff spent time with people providing support and showing care and concern for their well-being.

A relative told us, “I have asked for help with understanding the care of my loved one, but I have not received any information.” Another relative commented, “They don’t ask my loved one about their life. My loved one is always willing to talk if they tried.”

The activity coordinator told us they were currently completing “This is me” documents with people and or their family members. However, we saw that most of these were not completed and or detailed.

We saw staff knock on doors before entering people’s rooms. We saw staff treating people in a pleasant and affectionate manner. Staff addressed people by their preferred names and appeared to know people well. Staff treated people with dignity and respect throughout our site visits.

The process of completing "This is me" documents with people and their families had not been completed for everyone. This meant some people's care plans did not fully document their wishes to support them to be treated as individuals. Friends and relatives were able to visit people when they wished. The provider had a visitor’s policy in place. There were no restrictions on visitors, and we observed relatives and people visiting the home freely throughout our inspection. The chef told us about people’s food preferences and cultural requirements. For example, some people preferred vegetarian and pescatarian and halal meal choices.

People were supported with an ongoing programme of activities.

The activity coordinator had developed a robust weekly programme of activities. They attended regular forums for care home activity coordinators organised by the local authority. We saw a poster from a cancer charity in the lounge wall thanking people for facilitating a coffee morning. The deputy manager confirmed they had recently held a charity coffee morning and raised money to support people living with cancer.

We observed that the activity coordinator had a positive impact on the wellbeing of people using the service. People were actively engaged, and the level of activity was appropriate to their needs. A visiting GP told us the activity coordinator had a positive impact on people using the service. During the first day of our assessment, we observed the activity coordinator facilitating a general knowledge quiz in the morning and a program of chair exercises in the afternoon. People appeared to be engaged and enjoying these activities.

People were supported with a weekly programme of activities. Activities included visiting singers, board games, bingo, arts and crafts, darts, light exercise, quizzes, manicures, jigsaws and dominoes.

Regular relatives and residents meeting took place. A relative told us, “Anything I’ve asked the staff to do, they have done it with no issue.” Another commented, “If my loved one needs anything, the staff are right on to it”.

The registered manager told us they sought people’s views through residents and relatives’ meetings. However, information within people's care records was contradictory and not always reflective of their needs, wishes and risks.

People appeared comfortable in the presence of staff and knew them well. Throughout our inspection we observed positive and caring interactions between people and staff. Staff spent time with people providing support and showing care and concern for their well-being. We observed a relatives meeting. Issues discussed included tidying up the garden, preadmission assessments, care plan reviews, relatives requested access to their loved one’s records, relatives requested an information pack about the service, people’s access to health care, meals on offer and activities. Relatives also commented that activities coordinator was superb.

Staff talked positively about the home’s management, they all said they were seen on a one-to-one basis every month and felt supported. Staff told us the registered manager and deputy manager were approachable and listened to them. However, records showed there was no clear and effective governance, management and accountability arrangements in place to oversee the service delivery and ensure people's safety.

We saw the providers supervision and training records. These confirmed that staff were receiving support and training that would enable staff to fulfil their roles. There were regular staff meetings. Issues discussed at a recent meeting included kitchen management, cleaning issues, confidentiality, knowing our duties, being responsive, safeguarding, health and safety, training and teamwork. However, records showed there was no clear and effective governance, management, and accountability arrangements in place to oversee the service delivery and ensure people's safety.