Prince George Duke of Kent Court

Updated 26 February 2022

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.

As part of CQC's response to care homes with outbreaks of COVID-19, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) practice is safe and that services are compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 25 January 2022 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours' notice of the inspection.

Updated 26 February 2022

This inspection took place on 12 and 13 October 2017 and was unannounced. Prince George Duke of Kent Court is a nursing and residential home providing accommodation and support for up to 78 people. There were 58 people living at the home at the time of our inspection. This was our first inspection of the service under the current registration.

There was a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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.

At this inspection we found that staff had received training and supervision in support of their roles, although improvement was required to ensure nursing staff consistently received clinical supervision and training specific to their roles, in support of people’s clinical needs. The registered manager was aware of the need to make improvements in this area and we saw plans in place to address these concerns.

There were sufficient staff deployed at the service to meet people’s needs, and the provider followed safe recruitment practices. People had mixed views about agency staff used by the service at short notice, but agency usage was reducing, with new staff having recently started work at the service and further new staff working through the recruitment process at the time of our inspection.

Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely and appropriately. Risks to people had been assessed and staff were aware of the action to take to manage risks safely. People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff knew the types of abuse to look out for, and the action to take if they suspected abuse.

Staff sought consent from people when offering them support and followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) where people lacked capacity to make specific decisions for themselves. The provider had also sought to ensure that people were also only lawfully deprived of their liberty in accordance with the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) where this was in their best interests.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and were offered a choice of meals each day. The service catered for any specialist dietary requirements people had and followed guidance from healthcare professionals where appropriate, to ensure people were supported to eat and drink safely, and had sufficient nutritional intake. People were also supported to access a range of healthcare services when they needed them.

Staff treated people with care and consideration. We observed staff interacting with people in a friendly and attentive manner. People’s privacy and dignity were respected by staff. They were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. The service provided appropriate end of life care to people and sought feedback from people about their preferences for treatment at the end of their lives.

People had care plans in place which were person centred and reflected their individual needs and preferences. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis to ensure they were up to date. The service offered a range of activities for people to take part in and people told us they enjoyed the activities on offer.

The provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place which provided people with guidance on how to raise concerns. People told us they knew how to make a complaint and expressed confidence that the registered manager would address any issues they raised.

People and staff spoke positively about the registered manager and the management of the service. They told us the management team was a visible presence in the home, and looked to lead by example. Staff spoke positively about improvements that had been made to their ways of working since the arrival of the registered manager.

The provider sought people’s views through regular meetings and the use of surveys. We saw examples of improvements having been made at the service as a result of people’s feedback. Staff also conducted a range of checks and audits on aspects of the service which helped identify issues and drive improvements.