CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kings Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Kings Court was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and safe medicines, but serious gaps in risk management, care records and communication.
This was the first inspection of the home. Inspectors visited on 05 January 2022, spoke with people, a relative, staff and a healthcare professional, observed care and reviewed care, medicines, training and quality records.
People were not always given personalised care based on accurate and current information. Risk assessments and care plans contained errors or had not been reviewed. Staff did not always recognise changing health needs, and two people had significant weight loss that was not acted on until the new management team started.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, good infection control and kind, respectful interactions. However, the overall rating was Requires Improvement because there was limited assurance that people were consistently safe and that the new systems would lead to lasting improvement.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Inspectors saw positive interactions and people spoke positively about staff.
“We observed kind and caring interactions between people and staff throughout the inspection.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people’s needs safely. Call bells were answered promptly during the visit.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs safely.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Staff were trained and knew people’s medicines and preferences. The medicines records inspected were accurate, and medicines were stored securely.
“The MARs we looked at were completed accurately and correctly.” from the report
New management taking action
The management team had started identifying problems and putting new systems in place, including daily meetings to share information.
“The provider had also developed an ongoing action plan, detailing what action would be taken to drive improvement and ensure quality and safety at the service.” from the report
Inaccurate risk information
seriousSome risk assessments contained contradictory or outdated information. This included diabetes information and pressure damage risks, which could leave staff without the guidance needed to keep people safe.
“People were at risk, as the information needed to guide staff to care for people and keep them safe was not accurate or up to date.” from the report
Changing health needs missed
seriousStaff did not always notice or act on changes in people’s health and care needs. Six people moved to other services after community professionals identified that their needs could not be met.
“Staff had not recognised or raised concerns in a timely manner to keep people safe.” from the report
Falls and incidents not analysed
seriousIndividual incidents were recorded, but the home did not regularly look for patterns over time. One person had fallen 12 times in six months.
“However, we could not see what action had been taken in relation to analysis of trends over time, so that patterns with common causes could be identified and prevented.” from the report
Care records not reliable
seriousSome care plans were not reviewed and records of repositioning had gaps. Inspectors could not be sure that all required care had taken place.
“Records we looked at contained gaps and omissions and we could not be assured that the required care had taken place.” from the report
Communication and supervision
needs fixingCommunication between staff and managers had not always passed on important changes in people’s needs. Staff had also gone a significant time without formal supervision, and no annual appraisals had taken place.
“We identified concerns in respect to communication between staff and managers.” from the report
- 01How have you corrected and reviewed each person’s risk assessment and care plan since the inspection?
- 02How do you now identify and respond to weight loss, pressure damage, falls and other changes in health?
- 03What action has been taken to analyse repeated falls and prevent similar incidents?
- 04How do daily meetings and handovers ensure important changes in people’s needs reach all staff?
- 05Can you show how staff supervision, appraisals and quality checks are now completed and monitored?
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 February 2022 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 Kings Court
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 April 2020.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,020 to £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.