CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at SS Philip & James Retirement Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective safeguarding, safe staffing, suitable recruitment checks and safe medicines systems. Some medicines competency records were not easy to find, but the provider supplied them after the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health, nutrition and consent needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff were trained, understood people's needs and worked with healthcare professionals.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- Inspectors found exceptional kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. Staff supported people's independence, preferences and relationships, including when people were nearing the end of life.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and adapted when people's needs changed. People had regular activities, choices about daily life and compassionate end-of-life support.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was well organised, with approachable managers, staff supervision and audits. However, one authorised DoLS application had not been notified to CQC.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding caring; inspectors found kind, person-centred care and one missed DoLS notification.
Inspectors visited on 18 and 19 March 2019. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care and checked care records, staff files, medicines, safety records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were Good. Caring improved from Good to Outstanding. People and relatives praised the care, and inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, respect and patience.
There were two small record-keeping issues. Some records showing staff were competent to give medicines were not easy to find, although they were sent to inspectors after the visit. The manager had also not notified CQC about one authorised DoLS application. Inspectors discussed this during the inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated as individuals and supported with warmth, dignity and respect. Staff also helped people remain independent and involved in their own care.
“People were truly respected and valued as individuals; and empowered as partners in their care in an exceptional service” from the report
End-of-life support
Relatives and professionals spoke very highly of the emotional and practical support given to people and families at the end of life.
“Relatives were highly complementary about the compassionate and dignified end of life care staff provided.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, preferences and communication needs. Staff knew how people wanted their care to be provided and responded when needs changed.
“Care plans were personalised and detailed daily routines specific to each person.” from the report
Staff training and teamwork
Inspectors found staff were trained, supported and competent. Staff worked with healthcare professionals and followed their advice.
“People were supported by staff who had ongoing training and by a staff team who had worked at the home for many years.” from the report
DoLS notification was missed
needs fixingThe manager had not told CQC that one DoLS application had been authorised. Inspectors raised this during the inspection and made sure the manager understood the requirement.
“The providers audits had not identified the manager had not notified CQC when one Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) application had been authorised.” from the report
Medicine competency records
minorSome records showing staff had been assessed as competent to administer medicines were not easy to find during the inspection. The provider sent copies afterwards.
“Although staff had their competency to administer medicines assessed; some records were not easily found.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every authorised DoLS application is notified to CQC on time?
- 02Where are staff medicines competency records kept, and how do you check they are complete and easy to find?
- 03How will you involve us in reviewing and updating our relative's personalised care plan?
- 04How do you support people who prefer to stay in their rooms to remain engaged and have meaningful activities?
- 05What end-of-life support would be available to our relative and to our family?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and checking whether the service remained Good; the caring rating improved from Good to Outstanding. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 June 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, September 2016
SS Philip & James Retirement Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a few minor record-keeping issues.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 30 August 2016. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, visitors, staff, managers and health professionals. They observed care, medicines and equipment, and checked care records, training, recruitment, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and received Good ratings in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, received their medicines safely, had their health and dietary needs supported, and were treated with kindness and respect.
There were a few minor issues. One opened tube of cream was not dated, gaps in employment history were not always recorded, and some people were unclear about which manager was in charge. The home dealt with the undated cream immediately and was developing some of its audit systems.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives consistently described staff as kind, patient and respectful. Inspectors also observed warmth, reassurance and attention to privacy.
“People and their relatives all spoke positively about the care and support provided by the care home team.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's routines, preferences and abilities. Staff knew people well and used this information when providing support.
“The care plans were written in a person centred way.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were stored securely, recorded on medicines charts and given in line with prescriptions. Staff checked whether as-needed medicines were required.
“People received their medicines safely and in accordance with their individual prescription.” from the report
Good health and dietary support
People received health checks and support to attend appointments. Special diets and advice from health professionals were followed.
“Where people required special or modified diets, external specialist support was obtained, and their advice, guidance and instructions were followed.” from the report
Feedback led to action
The home collected views through meetings and surveys and acted on issues raised, including a request for weekly rather than daily menus.
“Resident meetings were held and actions were taken in response to the feedback people gave.” from the report
Cream was not dated
needs fixingOne tube of cream had not been dated when opened. Inspectors said it might therefore have been used after it was no longer effective, and the issue was addressed immediately.
“One tube of cream had not been dated when it was opened.” from the report
Employment gaps not always recorded
minorThe home checked for gaps in employment history, but this was not always recorded. The training manager said this would be recorded for future staff.
“The training manager told us they checked for gaps in employment history, although this was not always recorded.” from the report
Management structure was not clear to everyone
minorMost people and relatives knew which manager was in charge, but not all did. The management team said they were considering a clearer staff structure chart.
“Most people and relatives, but not all, knew which manager was in charge.” from the report
Some audits were still being developed
minorThe home was strengthening its audit systems. A care records audit had been redesigned and an infection control audit was still being developed.
“The registered manager and the senior managers told us they were in the process of developing and strengthening some of their auditing systems.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure creams are dated when they are opened?
- 02How do you record checks for gaps in a new staff member's employment history?
- 03How do you make sure residents and relatives know which manager is in charge?
- 04What changes were made to the care records and infection control audits after this inspection?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the overall quality of the home and all five rating areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 September 2016 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 SS Philip & James Retirement Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at SS Philip & James Retirement Home →
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at SS Philip & James Retirement Home →
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 January 2013.
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
25 live-in carers within about an hour of Bath and North East Somerset
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 £1,320 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She enabled mum to lead a high quality life in her own home until the very end and Lena and her family became close personal friends to me and my family.”
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.