Queens 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 people's care plans and risk assessments were under review, some were not always reflective of people's needs. One person had no personal information or life history documented on the care planning system since moving to the home in July 2023. This was a breach of Regulation 9 of the Health and Social CAre Act, (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014. Person Centred Care.

This service scored 46 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Peoples care was not always person centred. One person told us, “I wish they had more information on my situation.” A relative told us, “They don’t ask my loved one about their life, my loved one is always willing to talk if they (staff) tried.”

The registered manager told us that peoples care plans and risk assessments were kept under regular review. However, we found that peoples care plans and risk assessments were not always reflective of their needs. The activity coordinator told us they were currently completing “This is me” documents with people and or their family members. However, we noted that most of these had not been completed. People’s care plans were not person centred and were sometimes contradictory. For example, one person’s communication care plan recorded they could not hold a conversation and did not understand simple instructions. It also recorded the person was able to communicate through vocalisation and the person could not express their needs. The care plan did not provide details for staff on how best to communicate with the person. Some people’s care plans included inappropriate language to describe them. This presented a negative reflection of the person. For example, one person’s communication care plan stated they were a ‘suspicious person,’ and there was no further information for staff on what this meant. Another person’s communication care plan stated they were a ‘hostile person.’ Again, there was no further information to explain this. One person had no personal information and life history documented on the providers care planning system despite the person living in the service since July 2023. Another person’s care plan recorded they were living with dementia. Their ‘About Me’ care plan had no information documented about their, family and social networks, likes and dislikes, cultural or religious preference and their lifestyle choices. This meant that staff were not provided with important information about the person’s life and preferences to ensure their needs reflected their wishes. This was a breach of Regulation 9 HSCA RA Regulations 2014 Person-centred care. Staff talked positively about the people they supported and how they liked working with them.

We saw that staff treated people with dignity and respect during our site visits. 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. People appeared comfortable in the presence of staff.

Most people had access to health care and support when they needed it.

The deputy manager told us the home had positive links with community services such as district nurses and the community mental health team (CMHT). The registered manager told us people had access to healthcare services. These services included visiting chiropodists, dentists, and opticians. Where they made referrals to these teams the professional’s had developed care and support plans to meet peoples care needs. However, we found that referrals were not always followed up and records were not updated when required to reflect people’s needs.

A visiting professional told us they had some concerns about wound care and management at the service, and they would raise this with the manager during their visit and their manager when they returned to their office. Other partners gave positive feedback of how they worked with the care staff. They told us staff and managers managed the people’s medical needs well.

Most people had access to healthcare services when they needed them. Health care professionals visited the service on a regular basis to support people with their health and medical needs.

People and their relatives did not always have access to their care records or information about the service.

The registered manager told us that people's communication and sensory needs were assessed and documented in their plan of care to ensure staff had the relevant information on how best to communicate and support them. The registered manager told us if people required information in large print, a different language, audio, or visual aids this would be made available to them.

Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication. We found that people's communication needs were not always assessed and included in their care records. This meant that staff were not provided with information to help them understand people’s communication needs and how they preferred to be supported. During a site visit we attended a relatives meeting. Relatives requested access to their loved one’s records as many commented that they had not seen them. Relatives also requested an information pack about the service.

A person using the service told us, “The staff always let me know what’s going on. This is my home and love it.” Another person said, “There are resident’s meetings, we have sessions with each other. They are doing a lovely job with me here.”

The registered manager told us they took people’s views into account. They received feedback through residents and relatives’ meetings. They told us they used the feedback from people to make improvements at the service.

We observed a relatives meeting. Issues discussed included tidying up the garden, preadmission assessments and care plan reviews. Relatives requested access to their loved one’s records. They also requested an information pack about the service, people’s access to health care, and meals on offer and activities. Relatives commented that the activities coordinator was superb. The deputy manager told us they had a meeting recently with the registered manager and they were working to develop tools for the monitoring and reviewing of complaints. There were policies and procedures in place to ensure people’s concerns were responded to in a timely manner.

People had access to healthcare services when they needed it.

The registered manager told us they worked with various professional teams to support people with their care needs. These included physiotherapists and speech and language therapists. The community mental health team regularly attended the service to review people’s needs care and support needs. A GP visited the service on a fortnightly basis and when required to support people with their medical needs.

Partners gave feedback of how they worked with the care staff. They told us staff and managers managed people’s medical needs well.

Records showed the home worked with professionals such as, GP’s and community mental health teams. Referrals to additional support services were made by staff when required. However, we found that referrals were not always followed up and records were not updated when required to reflect people’s needs. There was an on-call manager available for staff out of normal working hours for advice and support.

The service supported a person who had recently lost their partner. They enabled the couple to share a room until their sad passing.

The registered manager told us that peoples care plans and risk assessments were kept under regular review. However, we found that peoples care plans and risk assessments were not always reflective of their needs.

Initial assessments were completed before people moved into the service. However, care plans and risk assessments were not always completed, reviewed or reflective of people’s needs and preferences.

People’s end of life wishes was recorded in their care records where they had chosen to share this information.

The registered manager told us they worked with people’s relatives, the GP and the local hospice to provide people with end-of-life care and support when it was required.

A professional from a local hospice was visiting a person using the service. They told us the person’s family had just commented to them that their loved one was beautifully cared for. People were supported at the end of their life. People and their relatives where appropriate, were consulted and encouraged to discuss their advanced end of life needs and wishes. Care plans documented people’s wishes for their end-of-life care. These ensured staff were aware of people’s wishes and needs at the appropriate time.