CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lower St Helens
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection control, use of protective equipment, testing, visiting arrangements and staffing during COVID-19-related pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Lower St Helens was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and staffing arrangements during a targeted COVID-19 visit.
Inspectors visited on 22 February 2022. This was an announced, targeted inspection focused on infection control, visiting arrangements and any staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
They found thorough cleaning, effective use of protective equipment, testing arrangements and plans for managing an outbreak. Visitors had to follow several safety checks, including testing and health screening.
The home had enough staff to cover absences without using bank staff. Inspectors said they were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were good.
The overall service was inspected but not rated. Safe was also inspected but not rated. The other four areas were not assessed during this visit, so this report is not a full judgment of the quality of care.
Infection control
Inspectors found strong arrangements for preventing and managing infections, including testing, protective equipment and outbreak planning.
“We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines.” from the report
Clean premises
The home had cleaning schedules, with frequently touched areas sanitised three times a day.
“The premises were very clean, there were thorough cleaning schedules completed.” from the report
Staffing cover
Staff covered absences between themselves, and inspectors found that shifts were covered without using bank staff.
“There had been no use of bank staff and the team covered absence between them ensuring shifts were covered and people were cared for.” from the report
Support and communication
People were given easy-read information to help them understand changes such as mask wearing and extra cleaning.
“People had been supported to understand why additional infection prevention and control measures such as wearing face masks and cleaning more than usual through use of easy read materials.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current visiting rules, and are visitors still expected to complete testing, health checks or other screening?
- 02How would you increase staffing if there were several absences or an infection outbreak?
- 03What arrangements are currently in place for testing, protective equipment and managing a COVID-19 outbreak?
- 04What are the home's current ratings for caring, effective, responsive and well-led care?
- 05How do you support people to understand any changes to infection control or visiting arrangements?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; only Safe was inspected and it was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 March 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.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, individual care, with some family concerns about staffing and communication.
Inspectors visited on 6 and 7 December 2017 without announcing the visit. They spoke with a person, staff, managers and relatives. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files, training records, risk assessments, complaints and quality checks.
The home supported four adults with learning disabilities. Inspectors found a friendly atmosphere and kind care that respected people's needs, choices and routines. They found safe medicines systems, suitable staffing during the visit, trained staff and appropriate checks on new employees.
People were supported with health appointments, food, activities and communication. Relatives were involved in care reviews and could raise concerns. The home had an open management style and systems to monitor quality and safety.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It remained Good since the previous inspection on 24 September 2015.
Kind relationships
Staff were observed to know people well and communicate effectively. Relatives gave positive feedback about the care and relationships.
“The atmosphere in the home was friendly and supportive and we observed staff knew people well and communicated effectively with them.” from the report
Personalised communication
Care plans explained how each person communicated and how staff should support their choices and routines.
“People had individual support plans for communication and there were also sections on supporting them in daily life and their preferred routines.” from the report
Activities and choice
People were supported to take part in activities linked to their interests, including swimming, cooking, pottery and college courses.
“People were supported to access a range of activities, such as pottery, outdoor activities, cooking, swimming, health and beauty, and college courses.” from the report
Staffing worries
minorTwo relatives felt the home did not have enough staff while it was recruiting. Inspectors found enough staff during the visit, but the home had used agency staff during this period.
“Relatives we spoke with were overall positive in their comments about the service but two said they felt the home did not have enough staff.” from the report
Consistency between staff
needs fixingOne relative said staff changes had affected consistency and communication about monitoring a person's food. The manager listened and took action after the concern was raised.
“A relative told us there had been an issue with staff "coming and going" that had an impact on the consistency of approach to a person's care” from the report
Response to a health issue
minorOne relative felt the home had taken some time to understand a health issue, although they said the service had become more aware and was catching up.
“One relative told us they felt the service had "taken a while to get a handle" on a health issue” from the report
- 01How many staff are currently on each shift, and how do you respond if someone is absent?
- 02How do you keep care consistent when agency or newly recruited staff are working?
- 03How do you record and monitor what my relative eats and drinks?
- 04How quickly are health concerns identified, reviewed and referred to health professionals?
- 05How are families involved in care reviews and kept informed about changes?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC areas, including accommodation, care and records for the four people living in the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 March 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.
Every inspection of Lower St Helens
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 July 2014.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.