CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found robust systems to assess and reduce falls risks, safe moving and handling training, checked equipment and regular environmental checks. They did not review the whole Safe key question.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, September 2021
Lord Harris Court was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong falls prevention, with some improvement needed in openness after incidents.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 9 September 2021. Inspectors looked mainly at falls, moving and handling, and infection prevention and control. They spoke with people using the home, a relative and staff, and reviewed care records, medicines records and safety documents.
Inspectors found that the home had suitable assessments, care plans and equipment to reduce the risk of falls. Staff had regular moving and handling training. Falls and accidents were recorded, investigated and used to improve practice.
The inspectors were assured about infection prevention, including PPE, testing, visiting arrangements and managing outbreaks. They identified that the home needed to improve how it followed duty of candour requirements, which concern being open with people and others when things go wrong.
This was not a full inspection. The home was inspected but not rated, and the previous overall rating of Good remained unchanged. The Safe rating from the previous inspection was not reviewed fully.
Falls prevention
The home assessed individual risks carefully and used care plans, equipment and referrals to reduce falls and injuries.
“The risk of falling and injuries was effectively mitigated by robust systems the service had in place.” from the report
Moving and handling
Staff received regular theoretical and practical training, with annual checks of their competence.
“Staff received appropriate training on moving and handling on a regular basis.” from the report
Learning from accidents
The home used falls diaries, a falls tracker, investigations and staff handovers to identify patterns and reduce repeat incidents.
“There was a robust system in place for identifying accidents and incidents, recording them, investigating causes and providing feedback or outcomes.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for PPE, testing, visiting, social distancing and managing infection outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Openness after incidents
needs fixingInspectors said the home was transparent overall, but it needed to improve how it followed duty of candour requirements after falls and injuries.
“some improvement in following duty of candour requirements was required.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to follow duty of candour requirements after falls or injuries?
- 02How do you assess and regularly review each resident's risk of falling?
- 03How do you check that staff remain competent in using hoists, slings and other moving equipment?
- 04How do you investigate repeated falls and involve other healthcare professionals?
- 05How do you keep families informed after an accident or injury?
This was a targeted inspection of falls, moving and handling, and infection prevention and control; it did not assess the whole Safe key question or the other key questions, so previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 September 2021 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, November 2017
Lord Harris Court was rated Good overall, but inspectors found that safety, night staffing and medicines needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 17 October 2017, followed by an announced visit on 18 October. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and professionals, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and audits.
The home was rated Good overall. Inspectors found kind and respectful care, care that generally met people's needs, a good range of activities and a management team that was improving the service.
Safety was rated Requires Improvement. Some people felt unsafe or vulnerable with temporary staff at night. There had also been many medicines errors and some medicines records were inaccurate, although the home was taking action and no errors had caused actual harm.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive relationships between staff and people. Staff protected privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were shown dignity and respect throughout the inspection visits.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, routines, life histories and individual needs. People and families were involved in planning care.
“Care plans were person centred and provided detail of the person's wishes and preferred routines.” from the report
Activities and community life
People could choose from varied activities and outings, including exercise, reading, bowls and trips into the community.
“People benefitted from a variety of activities.” from the report
Staff training and recruitment
The home used checks, references, induction and competency assessments to help ensure staff were suitable and able to provide care.
“People were supported by staff who had been recruited following robust procedures to ensure they were suitable to work with people.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The management team used audits, meetings and an improvement plan to identify shortfalls and track changes.
“People benefitted from an improving service because the quality and development of the service was regularly assessed and monitored.” from the report
Temporary night staff
seriousSome people felt vulnerable with temporary staff, especially at night. Concerns included abrupt or aggressive behaviour and slow responses to call bells.
“People did not always feel safe when temporary staff were offering them care without the presence of permanent staff.” from the report
Medicines errors
seriousThe home had reported 21 medicines errors since registration. Inspectors found incorrect dosing and duration in one case, missing information and a risk that people did not receive pain relief when needed.
“Improvements were needed to reduce the amount of medicines recording and administration errors to ensure people were given their medicines as safely as possible.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThe home was being run by an interim manager while the provider recruited to the registered manager post.
“The service did not have a registered manager, at the time of the inspection visits.” from the report
Call-bell response
needs fixingSome relatives said call bells were not always answered quickly enough, particularly at night. The home was auditing response times and investigating longer waits.
“However, some family members told us that call bells were not always answered quickly enough, especially during the night time.” from the report
- 01How many temporary staff are currently used on night shifts, and how are they supervised?
- 02What action has been taken to reduce medicines errors, and how are medicines records checked now?
- 03How quickly are call bells answered at night, and what happens when the target time is missed?
- 04Has a registered manager now been appointed, and who is responsible for the home while that process is completed?
- 05How are food temperature and menu variety monitored following the concerns raised in the report?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and providing an overall rating; it was the first inspection since the service was registered in October 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 November 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 Philip Duke of Edinburgh Court
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- September 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh Court →
- November 2017GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh Court →
- October 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 October 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
78 live-in carers within about an hour of Wokingham
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. 71 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.