CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Saint Lawrence Residential Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks with medicines, care records, consent, infection control and management oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 July 2023. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience spoke with 8 people, 2 relatives and 6 staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records, and inspected the home.
The home had enough staff and recruitment was safe. People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood safeguarding responsibilities. Staff were respectful and the atmosphere was described as warm and supportive.
However, inspectors found important safety and management problems. Risk information was not always complete or shared with staff. Medicines were not always managed safely. Infection control was inconsistent, and records did not always show that people had given valid consent or that decisions were in their best interests.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were all rated Requires Improvement. The home must send an action plan, and the CQC will monitor progress with the provider and local authority.
Enough staff
Inspectors found that staffing levels changed according to people's numbers and needs. Recruitment practices were safe.
“The provider monitored and made sure sufficient staff were deployed to safely support people.” from the report
Safeguarding awareness
Staff had safeguarding training and understood their responsibility to report concerns. People told inspectors they felt safe.
“Staff had received training in how to keep people safe from abuse.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff respected people's privacy and dignity. Inspectors saw good relationships between people and staff.
“The home was welcoming, and the atmosphere was warm and supportive.” from the report
Staff morale
Staff said they felt supported and valued, and could approach the management team with concerns.
“Morale within the service was good and the culture was open and relaxed.” from the report
Medicines
seriousMedicine stock records and storage temperature records were not always accurate or complete. Inspectors could not be assured that all medicines had been given and stored safely.
“This meant we could not be assured that medicines had been given as signed for by staff on the medicine's administration record.” from the report
Risk management
seriousSome people did not have detailed risk assessments, including people at high risk of falls. The home did not show that it had learned from accidents, incidents or falls.
“There was no evidence to show lessons had been learned from accidents, incidents or falls which had occurred at the service.” from the report
Infection control
seriousSome areas needed refurbishment and cleaning schedules were not always completed. The infection control policy and auditing were not up to date or effective.
“Some areas of the home required refurbishment to enable more effective cleaning and cleaning schedules were not always consistently completed.” from the report
Consent and restrictions
seriousRecords did not always show capacity assessments or best-interest decisions. This included decisions about lowered beds and medicines.
“The Mental Capacity Act (2005) had not been followed to ensure that people could make decisions about their care.” from the report
Management checks
seriousQuality monitoring systems did not reliably identify problems or ensure that improvements were made promptly. Feedback from people and staff was not fully gathered and acted on.
“Systems designed to monitor the safety and quality of the service and take action to mitigate risk, were not robust.” from the report
- 01What has been changed to make sure medicine stock, administration records and storage temperatures are checked accurately every time?
- 02How are risks such as falls, distress and equipment problems now recorded, shared with staff and reviewed after incidents?
- 03How do you record mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions for restrictions such as lowered beds or medicines?
- 04What refurbishment and cleaning changes have been completed, and how are infection control audits now followed up?
- 05How will you show that management checks identify problems promptly and that action is completed?
This inspection covered Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not rated, and the report says the previous comprehensive inspection report should be consulted for earlier ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 August 2023 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, January 2018
Saint Lawrence Residential Care Home was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but well-led was Requires Improvement.
Inspectors visited on 14 and 20 December 2017 without giving advance notice. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff, the manager and provider. They reviewed care and medicines records, staff files, safety documents and the building.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. Inspectors found people received their medicines, health and food needs were met, and staff were kind, respectful and responsive to people's preferences. Activities, family contact and end of life support were also viewed positively.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. There was no registered manager in post, even though this was a condition of the provider's registration. Some policies were out of date, and some supervision records were incomplete. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
Medicines and safety
Inspectors found that people received medicines as prescribed. Medication records were complete and accurate, and risks such as falls and choking had been assessed.
“We found people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors found that staff respected privacy and dignity and supported people's individual needs and choices.
“We found people were supported by staff who respected their privacy and dignity, and cared for their individual needs.” from the report
Individual care
Care was based on people's histories, preferences and changing needs. Care plans were reviewed monthly and people were involved in their care.
“We found care was person-centred and staff responded to people's changing individual needs.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People could take part in activities, use the garden and conservatory, visit community facilities and maintain contact with relatives.
“We found there were appropriate activities for people to participate in, and people could access the conservatory or secure garden areas independently.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post, despite this being a condition of the provider's registration. The manager had applied to register, but inspectors said this had not been done in a timely manner.
“There was no registered manager in post as required by a condition of the provider's registration” from the report
Out-of-date policies
needs fixingSome policies and procedures did not reflect current best practice. The manager said they were being updated.
“Some policies and procedures were not up-to-date and did not reflect best practice.” from the report
Fire equipment records
seriousFire extinguishers had passed their required service date. The manager arranged servicing during the inspection and provided an updated audit afterwards.
“However, we noticed the fire extinguishers had exceeded the required service date.” from the report
Incomplete supervision records
minorStaff received supervision and appraisals, but these were not always fully documented. The manager said future sessions would be recorded fully.
“We found staff received supervision and appraisals as required, however these were not always fully documented.” from the report
- 01Is there now a registered manager in post, and when was the registration completed?
- 02Have all policies and procedures been updated to reflect current best practice?
- 03When were the fire extinguishers last serviced, and how are future service dates checked?
- 04How are staff supervision sessions recorded to make sure the records are complete?
- 05How would staffing and quality checks change if more people moved into the home or people's needs increased?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 January 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 Saint Lawrence Residential Care Home
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- August 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Saint Lawrence Residential Care Home →
- January 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Saint Lawrence Residential Care Home →
- January 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 January 2011.
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
32 live-in carers within about an hour of North Lincolnshire
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. 29 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
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.