CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sainthill House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, managing testing and admissions, and maintaining cleaning and infection-control arrangements. The provider also had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control arrangements and safe visiting processes during a targeted COVID-19 inspection.
Inspectors visited the home on 16 February 2022. The visit was announced 24 hours in advance and focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
They found visitors could keep in contact with residents through planned visits, testing, protective equipment and a visiting hub. Staff used protective equipment, cleaning was checked, and people were supported with communication and easy-read information about COVID-19.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was a targeted inspection, not a full assessment of all five areas of care, so it does not provide an overall quality rating.
Safe visiting
The home had a booking system, testing on arrival, protective equipment and a dedicated visiting hub. People could visit in rooms, the garden or a visiting pod depending on the circumstances.
“There was a clear process and testing regime in place for visitors, with personal protective equipment (PPE) provided.” from the report
Infection-control training
Staff received ongoing infection-control training. The home checked hand washing and used spot checks to see whether training was being followed.
“The registered manager was proactive in ensuring staff put what they had learnt into practice.” from the report
Support with communication
Staff adapted communication for a person who was profoundly deaf by using written information, objects, body language and some sign language.
“They used white boards and objects of reference, as well as body language.” from the report
Support to understand COVID-19
The home sought specialist advice and used easy-read information to help people with learning disabilities understand illness, masks and how to tell staff if they felt unwell.
“They used easy read information to help people understand how to tell staff if they felt unwell; why people wear masks and not to be frightened of them.” from the report
Cleaning checks
The home had cleaning schedules and managers checked that they were working through daily spot checks.
“There were robust cleaning schedules in place. Their effectiveness was closely monitored by the team leaders and registered manager who carried out daily spot checks.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your visiting, testing and protective-equipment arrangements changed since the inspection on 16 February 2022?
- 02How do you support residents who are profoundly deaf or have other communication needs when staff are wearing masks?
- 03How do you now check that staff follow infection-control and hand-hygiene training in practice?
- 04What measures are currently in place when COVID-19 causes staffing pressures, and how could this affect care?
- 05How do you help people with learning disabilities understand illness, masks and when to tell staff they feel unwell?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 June 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, April 2019
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found kind, personalised care and safe systems, while the manager was not yet CQC-registered.
This was an unannounced inspection on 30 March 2019. One inspector and an expert by experience visited, spoke with people, a relative, staff and a professional, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines records, staffing records and other documents.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and respect, and supported by staff who knew their needs and preferences.
The report says staffing was sufficient, medicines were managed safely, care was personalised and activities were available. The home had improved its systems for referrals, medicines oversight and quality monitoring. At the time, there was a manager in post, but they were not yet registered with CQC.
Staff knew people well
Staff understood people's likes, preferences and health needs. Inspectors observed warm and friendly interactions.
“The management team and staff knew people well and understood their likes and preferences and health needs.” from the report
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, with safe recruitment procedures in place.
“Staff were recruited safely in sufficient numbers to ensure people's needs were met.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's individual needs, preferences and communication requirements. Activities supported people's wellbeing and social engagement.
“People received personalised care and support specific to their needs and preferences.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and compassion. Staff encouraged independence and involved people in decisions about their care.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Improving oversight
The management team used audits and new processes to monitor medicines, care records, referrals and the environment.
“The management team completed a range of quality audits to ensure they provided an efficient service and constantly monitored Sainthill House Care.” from the report
Manager not yet registered
needs fixingThere was a manager in post, but they were not registered with CQC when inspectors visited. The report says the manager had started the registration application.
“The service was currently without a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
- 01What is the current position with the manager's CQC registration, and who is legally responsible for the home while this is being completed?
- 02How often are medicines audits carried out, and what happens when an error or concern is found?
- 03How are care plans reviewed when a person's health or communication needs change?
- 04What activities are currently available, and how are they matched to each person's interests and abilities?
- 05How quickly are referrals made to GPs and other health professionals when people's needs change?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 April 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.
Every inspection of Sainthill House Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 July 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
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.