CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Saintbridge House Nursing and Residential Home
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some records and activities needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection over three days. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals. They reviewed care plans, daily records, recruitment files, training records and audits.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, staff were kind, medicines were managed safely, and people received support from health professionals.
Inspectors found some gaps. Records did not always show people's spiritual, religious and cultural needs, fluid monitoring was not always effective, some people wanted more daily activities, and end of life wishes were not always recorded. The manager provided action plans or said changes would be made.
Safe staffing and recruitment
People said staff were available when needed. Recruitment checks, including references and DBS checks, had been completed.
“People told us there was always somebody available to support them if needed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Staff supported people discreetly and helped them remain as independent as possible.
“People told us staff were kind and supported them well.” from the report
Good health support
The home worked with GPs, nurses and other professionals to meet people's health needs. Care plans were written with people and updated regularly.
“The service worked closely with healthcare teams to ensure peoples quality of life was maximised.” from the report
Approachable management
People, relatives and staff said the management team was approachable. The manager used audits, meetings and surveys to monitor quality.
“People and staff told us that the management team was approachable, and the service was well led.” from the report
Some personal needs were not recorded
needs fixingPeople's spiritual, religious and cultural needs were not always included in their assessments. The manager said this would be addressed and supplied an action plan.
“Peoples spiritual, religious and cultural needs were not always recorded in their assessments.” from the report
Fluid records were not always effective
needs fixingSome records showed people had not drunk enough, but no action had been recorded. The manager changed which people needed fluid charts and discussed monitoring with staff.
“Some people's care records indicated they had not drunk enough fluid; however, no action was taken as a result of this information.” from the report
Limited day-to-day activities
minorSome people and relatives said there were not enough daily activities, although people enjoyed activities when available. The manager said an additional activities coordinator would be recruited.
“Some people and relatives told us there were not enough day to day activities.” from the report
End of life wishes not always recorded
needs fixingEnd of life wishes were not always in care plans. The manager said some information was still on paper and provided an action plan for recording it.
“We saw end of life care wishes were not always recorded in people's care plans.” from the report
- 01Have all people's spiritual, religious and cultural needs now been added to their assessments?
- 02How do you identify and respond when someone is not drinking enough?
- 03Are end of life wishes now recorded in the electronic care plans, and how are they kept up to date?
- 04Has an additional activities coordinator been recruited, and what regular daily activities are now available?
- 05How do you check that actions from the inspection have been completed and remain effective?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous overall rating was Good, published on 10 February 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 July 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, February 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but the safe rating Requires Improvement because recruitment checks were not always robust.
This was an unannounced inspection on 7 and 9 December 2016. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care, toured the building and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, kind care, suitable activities and systems for checking quality.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Some staff recruitment checks were incomplete. This included missing information from previous employers and a failure to record a risk assessment after concerning information appeared on one DBS check. The provider said changes had been made, but inspectors could not confirm that they were fully established and maintained.
Enough staff
Inspectors found adequate staffing levels, including extra cover at busy times. Staff and visitors said there were enough people available to provide support.
“People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People had positive relationships with staff. Inspectors saw care that was kind, sensitive and respectful, with attention to privacy and dignity.
“People were treated with respect and kindness and their privacy and dignity was upheld” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Medicines were stored securely and the records checked had no gaps in administration. Audits and stock checks were carried out.
“Medicines administration records (MAR charts) had been completed appropriately with no gaps in the recording of administration on the MAR charts we examined.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Staff adapted care to individual preferences and needs. People could join daily group or individual activities, including music, outings and meals outside the home.
“People took part in a range of appropriate activities both in groups and on an individual basis.” from the report
Training and healthcare support
Staff received training and supervision for their roles. Inspectors found good communication with visiting healthcare professionals.
“People were supported through access to and liaison with healthcare professionals.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment checks
seriousThe home did not always check conduct and reasons for leaving previous care jobs. It also did not always follow up missing information or assess the risk from concerning DBS information before employment.
“People were placed at risk of being cared for by unsuitable staff because robust recruitment procedures were not always being applied.” from the report
Some life stories were missing
minorLife story information had not been completed for everyone. The home generally relied on relatives to provide it, which could limit the information available to staff about people’s history and preferences.
“the care home generally relied on people's relatives to complete the relevant information and this had not been achieved for everyone in the home.” from the report
Audits missed recruitment problems
needs fixingThe home carried out several quality checks, but these did not identify the recruitment shortfalls found during the inspection. The provider said improvements had been introduced, but inspectors could not confirm they would last.
“The audits did not pick up the shortfalls with staff recruitment we found at our inspection.” from the report
- 01What recruitment checks are now completed for people who have previously worked in care, including checks on their conduct and reasons for leaving?
- 02How do you assess and record risks when a DBS check contains concerning information?
- 03How do you make sure missing information from previous employers is followed up before someone starts work?
- 04How will you complete life story information for people who do not have it, including people whose relatives cannot provide it?
- 05How do your quality audits now check that recruitment improvements are being followed consistently over time?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including observations, discussions and checks of care, medicines, recruitment and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 February 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 Saintbridge House Nursing and Residential Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Saintbridge House Nursing and Residential Home →
- February 2017GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Saintbridge House Nursing and Residential Home →
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 September 2012.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.