CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Prince Edward Duke of Kent Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were generally protected from avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough competent staff, safe medicines systems and good safeguarding knowledge, but identified risks from stairs and hot radiators and saw previous medicines recording errors that had been investigated.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's health needs and staff had training to support conditions such as diabetes, pressure wounds and swallowing difficulties. People received suitable food, drinks and healthcare support, although some manual handling and fire safety refresher training was out of date.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, respect and compassion. People were involved in care decisions, had their privacy respected and were supported to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and the home offered a wide range of activities linked to people's interests. End-of-life plans were incomplete for some people, including a person receiving end-of-life care whose wishes had not been recorded.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open and supportive culture, with people, relatives and staff reporting improvements since the new manager started. Quality checks, meetings and learning systems were being used to identify and make improvements, although there was no registered manager in post.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care and strong activities, but end-of-life planning and some safety checks needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 and 19 February 2020. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, visitors, staff and other professionals. They also reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough skilled staff, safe medicines management, clean premises and kind, respectful care. People were supported to make choices, stay active and continue hobbies that mattered to them.
A new manager had been in post for six weeks and had already made significant changes. The home did not have a registered manager at the inspection, but an application was being prepared. Inspectors found some risks around stairs and hot radiators, incomplete end-of-life planning and some out-of-date refresher training. Immediate action was taken over the identified safety risks.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff gain consent, protect privacy and support people gently and respectfully.
“We saw staff treated people with kindness, respect and compassion.” from the report
Meaningful activities
The home supported people to continue old interests and try new activities, including gardening, swimming, ice skating and horse riding.
“An area the service excels at is providing a range of indoor and community-based activities designed to meet people's interests and benefit their health.” from the report
Staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough competent staff and prompt responses to call bells. Medicines were stored and given safely, with staff explaining medicines to people.
“We saw there were enough competent staff on duty with the right skills to support the needs of people using the service.” from the report
Positive management changes
The new manager had quickly improved the culture and staff morale. Staff, people and relatives described the management as approachable and supportive.
“In the short time they had been in post they had made significant changes to improve the culture and quality of the service.” from the report
Good food and support with eating
People and relatives were very positive about the food. Staff understood dietary needs and used creative approaches to encourage people at risk of weight loss to eat and drink.
“People and their relatives were highly complementary about the quality of the food.” from the report
Stairs and hot radiators
seriousInspectors found safety issues involving a staircase and radiators that could cause burns. The manager took immediate action after the inspection to reduce these risks.
“The premises have a wide sweeping staircase from the ground to the first floor.” from the report
Incomplete end-of-life plans
needs fixingSome people's end-of-life wishes were still being developed or were not recorded. This meant staff might not know how a person wanted their final care to be provided.
“Therefore, staff could not know they were acting in accordance with their individual wishes to experience a comfortable, dignified and pain free death.” from the report
Out-of-date refresher training
needs fixingSome manual handling and fire safety refresher training was overdue. Inspectors saw no poor practice and found staff knowledgeable, but the training still needed updating.
“Some training, such as manual handling and fire safety refreshers were out of date, however staff were knowledgeable about these subjects and we saw no poor practice.” from the report
Manager not yet registered
minorThere was no registered manager at the time of the inspection. The new manager was preparing an application to become registered.
“At this inspection there was no registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the staircase and radiators since the inspection?
- 02How will you make sure my relative's end-of-life wishes are discussed, recorded and kept up to date?
- 03Have all manual handling and fire safety refresher courses now been completed?
- 04What is the current position on the manager's application to become registered with the CQC?
- 05How would you support my relative to continue their existing hobbies and take part in activities?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the premises and care across all five CQC questions; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 April 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, September 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and mealtime support needing improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 7 March 2017. Inspectors reviewed care records, staffing, medicines, training, complaints, safety checks and the home itself. They spoke with people living there, staff, relatives and a healthcare professional, and observed care in both units.
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Risks, medicines, recruitment, cleanliness and safeguarding were managed well. Staff were trained and understood people's rights, including decisions made for people who could not make them themselves.
People were treated kindly and received care based on their preferences. Inspectors saw a welcoming atmosphere, varied activities and good communication with families. They also found two areas that could be better: one person's weight and nutrition monitoring was not recorded as planned, and suitable assistive cutlery was not offered to one person.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This reflects what inspectors found during this inspection visit, including their observations and the records they checked.
Enough staff
Inspectors saw staff available to meet people's needs promptly. People, relatives and staff said staffing levels were sufficient.
“People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff.” from the report
Safe care
Risks such as falls, pressure areas and moving and transferring were assessed and managed. Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely.
“Risks to people's health and welfare were well managed.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff listened to people, supported them at their own pace and treated them with respect. Inspectors saw warm and personal interactions.
“Caring relationship had been developed and people were observed being treated with kindness respect and compassion.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Care plans included people's preferences, routines and life history. The home offered varied activities, including gardening, singing, cookery and walks.
“People received care that was responsive to their needs and personalised to their wishes and preferences.” from the report
Open management
Inspectors found approachable managers, supportive staff relationships and systems for checking and improving the quality of care.
“The culture of the service was open, honest and caring and focused on people's individual needs.” from the report
Nutrition records
needs fixingOne person who was meant to be weighed weekly was weighed monthly instead. The report also found a delay in recording a fortified diet, although inspectors noted no harm on this occasion.
“However, we reviewed the care plan for one person who had been identified by as requiring weekly weights and saw that they were in fact being weighed monthly” from the report
Mealtime equipment
minorOne person struggled to use ordinary cutlery. Inspectors did not see suitable assistive cutlery offered, which might have supported greater independence.
“We did not see any assistive cutlery available or offered to them which may have enabled them to use it independently.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure people who need weekly weights are weighed on time and that nutrition actions are recorded?
- 02What assistive cutlery and suitable finger foods are available for people who find ordinary cutlery difficult to use?
- 03How many staff are normally on duty in each unit, and how do you respond if staffing levels change?
- 04How often will my relative's care plan be reviewed, and how will I be involved?
- 05What activities would be suitable for my relative, including if they prefer quieter time or one-to-one support?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the overall service, covering Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led, with all five areas rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 September 2017 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 Prince Edward Duke of Kent Court
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Prince Edward Duke of Kent Court →
- September 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Prince Edward Duke of Kent Court →
- March 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 March 2016.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.