CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 14-15 St James Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, staff knew how to report abuse, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were stored, administered and checked safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training, supervision and support. People received help from health and social care professionals, and staff followed the Mental Capacity Act when supporting decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with dignity and respect and supported their independence. Inspectors saw caring and supportive relationships, with people involved in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, history, preferences and communication methods. People chose activities, spent time in the local community and were supported to maintain relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Staff described an open culture and good communication. Audits covered care plans, risks, medicines, incidents and health and safety, and actions were followed up.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support across all five areas they assessed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 17 and 19 September 2019. One inspector spoke with seven people and five staff, observed care, checked care and staff records, and sought feedback from one health or social care professional.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, medicines were managed properly, staff were trained, and people's care was personalised.
People were supported to make choices, maintain relationships and take part in activities. The home had systems for checking quality and making improvements. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection, published in April 2017.
Safe care
Staff understood safeguarding and individual risks. Inspectors found medicines were safely managed and the home was clean.
“Medicines were safely administered. Medicines administration records were appropriately signed by staff when administering a person's medicines.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisals. Training covered safeguarding, the Mental Capacity Act and people's individual needs.
“People received effective care and support from staff who were well trained and competent.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Staff supported people's dignity, privacy, independence and choices. Inspectors saw warm relationships and people taking part in meaningful activities.
“Staff treated people with dignity and respect when helping them with daily living tasks.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences, history, communication needs and health information. Staff used these records to provide consistent support.
“Care plans were up-to-date and were clearly laid out.” from the report
Good management checks
The home used audits, meetings and surveys to monitor care and respond to suggestions. Inspectors found that actions identified through checks had been followed up.
“Where actions were needed, these had been followed up.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How many staff are normally on duty during the day and at night, and how are sickness absences covered?
- 02How are my relative's medicines checked, including medicines that are not taken regularly?
- 03How will my relative's care plan and risk assessments be reviewed when their physical or mental health changes?
- 04Which activities and community visits could my relative choose, based on their interests and communication needs?
- 05How can my relative or our family raise a concern, and how would it be recorded and followed up?
This was an unannounced, planned inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 November 2019 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, April 2017
Mr Warwick Phillips and Mrs Deborah Phillips - 14-15 St James Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with records improved since the last inspection.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 6 March 2017. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with six people living at the home, a visitor, four staff members and three relatives. They also checked care plans, staff files, medicines records and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, staff were kind and respectful, medicines were managed safely, and people's health needs were monitored.
At the previous inspection, care records were not accurate or up to date and Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. This inspection found the records had been corrected, so Responsive improved to Good and the previous breach was no longer present.
The home supports up to 17 adults with mental health problems and does not provide nursing care. Refurbishment was under way, and the home was working on providing more individual activities in the community.
People felt safe
The home assessed individual risks with people and took steps to reduce them. Staff were described as available and suitable to keep people safe.
“People were fully involved in the completion of comprehensive assessments of their individual risks, and were in agreement with any plans to keep them safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Staff respected privacy, asked before entering rooms and supported independence.
“We observed staff knocking on people's doors before entering and asking for consent before providing support.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, wishes and histories. Staff knew people's preferences and responded when needs changed.
“Care plans we read were personalised to each individual and contained information to assist staff to provide care in a manner that respected their wishes.” from the report
Improved care records
The previous problem with inaccurate or outdated records had been addressed. This led to the Responsive rating improving from Requires Improvement to Good.
“At this inspection we found records relating to the care and treatment of people were now accurate and up to date.” from the report
Health and access improvements
The home worked with health professionals and was making physical improvements, including a stair lift, walk-in shower and safer access.
“A programme of refurbishment was underway to make the environment safer, and improve the quality of life of the people living there.” from the report
Activities were reducing
needs fixingPeople had attended organised activities less often. The home was changing its approach to focus more on individual activities and community opportunities.
“The registered manager told us that despite their best efforts, people had not been motivated to join in with organised activities at the home and, apart from cooking, had been attending, "less and less".” from the report
Staffing pressures
needs fixingRecent staffing pressures had reduced the senior carer's time for management support, although this was improving after new staff were recruited.
“However, recent staffing pressures meant the senior carer had less time in this supporting role, although this was improving now that new staff had been recruited.” from the report
Further training needed
minorStaff said they would soon need additional moving and handling training to support people whose physical health was deteriorating.
“Staff told us they would soon need additional training, for example in moving and handling, so they could continue to effectively support people whose physical health had begun to deteriorate.” from the report
- 01What individual activities and community opportunities are now available for my relative?
- 02How do you ensure there are enough staff when there are staffing pressures?
- 03Has all the additional moving and handling training identified in the report been completed?
- 04How often will my relative's care plan and risk assessments be reviewed?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in decisions and reviews?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; all five ratings were given at this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 April 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 14-15 St James Road
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 December 2010.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.