CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at King Charles Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and no concerns about the home's response to COVID-19.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 4 November 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control measures as part of a wider COVID-19 review of care homes.
Inspectors found suitable arrangements for visitors, testing, admissions, isolation, PPE, cleaning and social distancing. They were also assured that staff had suitable infection control training and that the home's policies were being followed.
The home helped people keep in touch with relatives by phone and internet and provided social activities. Visiting was severely restricted because people were clinically vulnerable, but some visits were allowed, such as for people receiving end of life care.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a full overall quality rating or ratings for all five areas of care.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely and had arrangements to prevent and manage infection outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Testing and admissions
The home had testing arrangements for staff and residents. New residents needed COVID-19 test evidence and had a period of self-isolation.
“Robust admission procedures were in place, for example, the service requiring documentary evidence of Covid-19 test results before people moved in, followed by a period of self-isolation.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was very clean and had extra cleaning hours to help maintain hygiene during the pandemic.
“The service was very clean and had effective cleaning routines in place to ensure risks were minimised and people were kept safe.” from the report
Keeping people connected
Staff helped people stay in contact with family and friends by phone and through the internet. Social activities were also provided.
“Staff had helped people to stay in touch with family and friends through phone calls, and through the internet.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What visiting arrangements are currently in place, including for people receiving end of life care?
- 02How will you help my relative keep in touch with family if visits are restricted?
- 03What testing and self-isolation arrangements apply when a new resident moves in?
- 04How do you make sure agency or bank staff are not working in another care setting?
- 05What activities are available for residents who are isolating or unable to receive visitors?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic; it did not assess the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 November 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, January 2018
King Charles Court was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but communication about changes was not always timely.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 12 December 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, visitors, staff and health professionals. They observed care, looked around the building and checked care records, medicines, staff files and management records.
The home was meeting the regulations and remained Good, as it was at the previous comprehensive inspection in September 2015. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable risk assessments and trained staff. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
People had care plans that reflected their needs and choices. Staff supported people with food, healthcare, activities and maintaining independence. Inspectors also found effective quality checks and an approachable management team.
There were some areas to improve. People said they were not always told about changes quickly enough. One bathroom was being used to store equipment, although the registered manager said it would be redesigned.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff providing patient, dignified and respectful support. People and visitors also spoke positively about the care.
“We saw they were kind, patient and treated people with dignity and respect.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, and nurses administering medicines had the required skills. Medicines were stored securely and records for controlled medicines were accurate.
“Medicines were administered to people by nursing staff who were competent to carry out the role safely.” from the report
Individual care and independence
Care plans included people's nursing, social and personal needs. Staff supported people to make choices and helped some people improve or regain independence.
“Care plans were detailed and included current information about people's nursing care needs as well as their social support needs and wishes.” from the report
Quick response to people
Staff were available when needed and responded promptly to requests. Inspectors found that people did not have to wait long for call bells to be answered.
“Call bells were answered quickly and people did not have to wait.” from the report
Activities and food choices
The home offered a range of group and individual activities, trips out and visiting entertainment. People were offered varied meals and alternatives where needed.
“There were group and individual events that took place in the service regularly.” from the report
Information about changes
needs fixingPeople said the organisation did not always keep them informed about changes quickly enough. Inspectors made a recommendation about this.
“However, people told us that the organisation did not always keep them informed of changes occurring in a timely way.” from the report
Bathroom used for storage
minorOne of the two bathrooms was being used to store equipment. This reduced people's access to that bathing facility, although improvements were planned.
“One of two bathrooms was currently being used for storage of equipment.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure residents and families are told about organisational changes promptly?
- 02Has the bathroom that was being used for storage been redesigned, and can residents with limited mobility use it?
- 03How will you meet the needs of a resident who needs clear signage to move around the home independently?
- 04How are care plans reviewed when a person's health, mobility or eating and drinking needs change?
- 05What activities and trips are currently available for people who prefer individual support or cannot leave their room?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 January 2018 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of King Charles Court
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.