We carried out a review of the data available to us about Prince George House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Prince George House, you can give feedback on this service.
Prince George House is a residential care home providing the regulated activities personal and nursing care and treatment of disease, disorder and injury for up to 80 people. The service provides support to older people and people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 69 people using the service. The service accommodates people in four separate units, each of which has separate facilities.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People told us they were happy living at Prince George House. One relative told us, “The home has a friendly and caring feel, everyone from cleaners to senior staff on my [relatives] wing clearly know him well and always acknowledge visitors.”
We received very varied feedback regarding staffing levels from residents, relatives and staff. However, the provider had recently introduced flexible working for staff so that there were more staff on duty at busy times.
Staff responded to changes in people's health and well-being and worked with health and social care professionals to benefit those living at the service.
People were protected from abuse because staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities. Care staff were recruited safely. Staff recognised the importance of team work to provide consistent and safe care.
There were systems in place which enabled the registered manager and provider to monitor the quality of care and the safety of the service. Staff had access to protective equipment to protect people from the risk of infections.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 5 April 2018).
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service and a report from the ombudsman.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service has not changed and remains Good.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Prince George House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
This unannounced comprehensive inspection took place on 5 and 6 December 2017.
A registered manager was in post when we inspected the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The overall rating of this service was Good at our last inspection of 25 and 29 September 2015. At this inspection the overall rating remains Good, while the key question of Responsive has improved to Outstanding.
A significant strength of the service was people had the opportunity to take part in various social events and activities based on their expressed preferences. Activities were both innovative and involved members of staff from all departments such as catering and maintenance. Service staff made the wishing tree, that listed peoples wishes, come true and happen. There were strong links to the local community, people had the opportunity to meet and engage with people of varying ages and enjoy a large variety of events and entertainment brought into the service.
Staff provided care that was person centred and people's individual needs were clearly documented. Staff had received training to provide care to people living with dementia and supported people in a holistically and person-centred way. People living with dementia were supported by staff to play a part in the everyday activities of the service.
People living at the service and their relatives were involved in planning and reviewing their care and had opportunities to feedback about the service. People were supported to follow a wide range of planned hobbies and interests and to take an active and purposeful part in the daily life of the service.
Staff knew how to keep people safe from the risk of harm as they had been trained and knew what to do if they had concerns. Risks were assessed and management plans were in place to minimise the risk to people’s safety while respecting their right to pursue interests of their choice.
Medicines were managed safely and sufficient numbers of trained staff were deployed to meet people’s needs.
Staff had received infection control training and used this information for the storage of food and cleanliness of the accommodation.
The senior managers learned from incidents and accidents within the service and made the necessary improvements. They shared this information with the staff through supervision and staff meetings. The staff received training to support them to meet the needs of the people.
People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the polices and systems in the place support this practice.
Staff were kind, caring and promoted people’s privacy and their dignity was respected.
People had contributed to the menu planning and enjoyed nutritional meals.
People were involved in the planning of their care and staff were responsive to their needs. The staff treated people with respect and dignity.
The service was responsive because people’s care had been planned following an assessment of their needs. People were provided with opportunities to pursue their social interests in the local community and in the planning of group activities provided from within the service.
Service staff worked to provide personalised care to meet people’s needs which enhanced their quality of life and outstanding end of life care. Worked had been carried out with the GP surgery and hospice staff to provide appropriate good quality end of life care. Effective systems and processes were in place so people experienced a comfortable and dignified death in agreement with the wishes they had expressed.
The service listened and learnt from people’s experiences. Concerns and complaints were responded to in a timely manner.
The service had a positive culture that was person centred, open, inclusive and empowering of people. The atmosphere was friendly and there were good relationships between staff, the people they supported and visiting relatives and friends. The service staff completed a number of audits and acted upon the findings for the benefit of the people living at the service.
This inspection took place on 24 and 29 September 2015 was unannounced.
Prince George House is a new care home which opened in February 2015, the service provided personal and nursing care to up to 80 older people. During our inspection there were 72 people living in the home, some people living with dementia.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
There were enough staff to support people safely and staff knew what to do if they suspected someone may be being abused or harmed. Recruitment practices were robust and contributed to protecting people from staff who were unsuitable to work in care. Medicines were managed and stored properly and safely so that people received them as the prescriber intended.
Staff had received the training they needed to understand how to meet people’s needs and were clear about their roles. They understood the importance of gaining consent from people before delivering their care or treatment. Where people were not able to give informed consent staff and the manager ensured their rights were protected.
People living in the service told us that it was a good place to live, they liked the environment, and they told us the staff were kind and caring. People had enough to eat and drink to meet their needs and staff assisted or prompted people with meals and fluids if they needed support.
Staff treated people with warmth and compassion. They were respectful of people’s privacy and dignity and offered comfort and reassurance when people were distressed or unsettled. People received care that was planned to keep them healthy and were supported to live in a way they wanted to. If people became unwell they were referred promptly to healthcare professionals for treatment and advice about their health and welfare.
Staff showed commitment to understanding and responding to each person’s individual needs and preferences so that they could engage meaningfully with people. Outings and outside entertainment was offered to people and staff offered interesting activities on a daily basis.
Staff understood the importance of responding to and resolving concerns quickly if they were able to do so. Staff also ensured that more serious complaints were passed on to the management team for investigation. People and their representatives were confident that any complaints they made would be addressed by the manager.
The service was well-led and had consistent leadership. The staff told us that the manager was supportive and easy to talk to. People who lived in the service and their relatives told us that the manager was open and approachable. The manager was responsible for monitoring the quality and safety of the service and asked people for their views so that improvements identified were made where possible. The organisation also carried out quality assurance visits, set action plans and checked the actions had been undertaken.