CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Prince Michael of Kent Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Rated Outstanding; inspectors found excellent personalised care, strong leadership and major improvements in safety since the last inspection.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 29 and 31 August 2018. They observed care, spoke with people living there, staff, relatives and professionals, and checked care records, recruitment files, training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Outstanding overall. Effective, Responsive and Well-led were rated Outstanding. Safe and Caring were rated Good. People told inspectors they felt safe, well cared for and listened to.
Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines management, good safeguarding knowledge and well-maintained premises. Care was personalised and activities were varied. The home had designed its environment carefully for people living with dementia.
At the previous inspection in February 2017, the home required improvement in protecting people from harm and keeping them safe. Inspectors found that the home had worked extremely hard to improve these areas.
Improved safety
The home had made major improvements since the previous inspection. Staff understood safeguarding, risks were reviewed and technology was used to help prevent falls.
“At this inspection we found that the service had worked extremely hard to improve the safety and welfare of people at the home” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people's histories, routines, preferences and goals. Care plans were used to support independence and personal interests.
“People received care and support that was personalised, met their needs and greatly improved the quality of their life.” from the report
Activities and dementia support
People could take part in varied activities inside and outside the home. The environment included themed spaces and sensory features designed around people's memories and interests.
“People were encouraged to live their lives in the way they wanted and were involved in innovative, creative and meaningful activities.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff had role-related training, regular updates, supervision and competency checks. The home also used specialist dementia training and observation to improve how staff supported people.
“There was a well-developed training programme and was appropriate to the roles staff performed.” from the report
Strong management
Inspectors found clear leadership and strong systems for reviewing the quality and safety of care. People and staff were encouraged to give their views.
“There were robust quality monitoring systems in place to help ensure continual improvements were made” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you make sure the improved safeguarding procedures are followed by every member of staff?
- 02How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs, preferences or health changes?
- 03Which activities would suit my relative's interests, including if they prefer one-to-one support rather than group activities?
- 04How do you check that staffing levels remain sufficient during the day and at night?
- 05How are medicines reviewed, and can people who are able to do so safely manage their own medicines?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality and safety of the care home, covering all five CQC questions and the premises as well as care. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
What inspectors found, June 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but serious safeguarding and monitoring failures.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 23 February 2017. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, reviewed six care records, and checked medicines, training and quality records.
People generally received kind, respectful and personalised care. Staff were available, medicines were managed safely, people's health needs were supported, and activities and food choices were available.
However, inspectors saw a safeguarding incident that was not dealt with under the home's own procedure. Unexplained bruising was not properly recorded, and records of falls were not used to reduce further risks. The home also failed to tell the CQC about recent potential safeguarding concerns.
The overall rating of Requires Improvement means the home was not consistently meeting the required standard. Safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while effective, caring and responsive were rated Good.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors observed warm, respectful interactions and support for people's dignity and privacy.
“People were treated with warmth, kindness and respect.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Staff were trained to give medicines and their competence was checked. Inspectors found medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely.
“People's medicines were managed safely by staff who had been trained in the safe administration of medicines.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, preferences and changing needs. Staff used this information to provide individual support.
“People received personalised care and support that met their individual needs and took full account of their background history and individual circumstances.” from the report
Food and health support
People had a wide range of meals, snacks and drinks, including support for special diets. Health professionals were involved when needed.
“People received support they needed to eat and drink sufficient quantities and their health needs were well catered for” from the report
Activities and complaints
The home offered activities, trips and communal spaces. Complaints were investigated and people felt able to raise concerns.
“Concerns and complaints raised by people who used the service or their relatives were appropriately investigated and resolved.” from the report
Safeguarding response
seriousThe home did not follow its safeguarding procedure after inspectors saw sexually inappropriate behaviour involving two people. Unexplained bruising was also not documented so it could be investigated.
“The service failed to follow and implement its own safeguarding procedure which could have placed the person at serious risk of harm.” from the report
Weak risk monitoring
needs fixingRecords showed falls, but there was no evidence that the information was reviewed and used to prevent further falls. Monitoring systems also failed to identify safeguarding concerns.
“The overall quality and monitoring of the service had not been effective in identifying issues we identified as part of our inspection.” from the report
CQC notifications
seriousThe registered manager had not informed the CQC about recent events involving potential safeguarding concerns.
“The registered manager had not informed the CQC of the recent events in relation to potential safeguarding concerns.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken since the inspection to make sure all safeguarding concerns are reported and followed up immediately?
- 02How are unexplained bruises now recorded, investigated and reviewed?
- 03How do you review falls and show that action is taken to reduce the risk of further falls?
- 04What checks now make sure important incidents are reported to the CQC and the local authority when required?
- 05What evidence can you show that the quality monitoring system has been improved?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions and was the first inspection since the home was registered on 18 March 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 June 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 Michael of Kent Court
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Outstanding.
- December 2018Outstandingcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
Read what inspectors found at Prince Michael of Kent Court →
- June 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Prince Michael 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.