CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Andrews Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections, using protective equipment safely, carrying out testing and managing outbreaks. They also found an isolation area and arrangements for safe visiting.
- Effective?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Targeted inspection found good COVID-19 infection control, but the service was inspected and not rated.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 17 January 2022. This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic. They also asked about staffing pressures.
Inspectors found the home was clean, well ventilated and arranged to support social distancing. Visitors were tested and required to wear suitable protective equipment. Staff were trained to use protective equipment safely.
The home had an isolation area for people who tested positive and for people living with dementia who might not understand the need to self-isolate. Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for testing, vaccination, visiting, admissions and managing outbreaks.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall rating or a full rating for all five areas of care.
Clean environment
The home was clean and hygienic, with regular cleaning of high-touch areas and good ventilation.
“People were living in a clean and hygienic environment.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had effective arrangements for protective equipment, testing, visiting and preventing or managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Isolation arrangements
The home had created an isolation area to help contain infection and reduce the risk of it spreading across the home.
“An isolation area was created in the home for people who tested positive for Covid-19” from the report
Social distancing
The purpose-built home had enough space and sitting areas for people to keep apart outside their bedrooms.
“The environment was purpose built, spacious with enough sitting areas to ensure people could socially distance” from the report
Protective equipment training
Staff wore protective equipment in line with guidance and had training in putting it on, removing it and disposing of it safely.
“Staff wore their PPE according to current guidance and they were trained in safely putting on, taking off and dispose of these safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently manage staffing pressures linked to COVID-19 or other infections?
- 02How are visitors currently tested and supported to use protective equipment?
- 03How is the isolation area used now, including for people living with dementia?
- 04How do you currently check that non-exempt staff and visiting professionals meet vaccination requirements?
- 05What are the home's current ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 February 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, May 2021
Rated Good and no longer in special measures; inspectors found safe, kind care, but leadership still needs to become more consistent.
Inspectors made unannounced visits on 22 and 26 April 2021. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional. They also checked care plans, medicines, staff records and management records.
People were described as safe and well cared for. Staff understood people's risks and needs. Medicines, infection control, food and drink, healthcare, dignity, activities and complaints were generally managed well.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because some improvements were still being embedded. The home had previously been rated Inadequate and placed in special measures, but it was no longer in special measures after this inspection.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns, and risk assessments gave guidance on supporting people safely.
“People felt safe with the care they received, and staff were knowledgeable about when to report concerns to safeguard people.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind and inspectors saw people treated with dignity and respect. Staff also encouraged people to remain as independent as possible.
“People said they were treated with dignity and respect and staff promoted their independence.” from the report
Good infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable infection prevention measures, including PPE, testing, social distancing and arrangements for managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Improvements since the last inspection
The provider had acted on the previous poor rating. Inspectors found enough improvement for the home to be removed from special measures and for previous breaches to be closed.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Medicines checks were inconsistent
needs fixingMedicines were generally given safely, but daily medicine counts were not being completed across the whole home. The management team recognised that practice needed to be consistent.
“There were discrepancies in how medicines were managed between the different parts of the home. Daily counts of medicines were not being done across the home.” from the report
Improvements were not fully embedded
needs fixingThe home had made positive changes, but inspectors said the new culture and systems still needed to be sustained. This was particularly important as occupancy increased.
“There was still a need to embed these changes and new culture, so it became a consistent and sustained way of working.” from the report
- 01How are daily medicine counts now completed across every part of the home?
- 02What checks will show that the improvements and new culture remain consistent as occupancy increases?
- 03How many agency staff are currently being used, and how do you make sure they know each person's needs?
- 04How will you keep families updated about any further changes following the previous Inadequate rating?
This was an unannounced planned follow-up inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control, following the previous Inadequate rating and breaches. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 May 2021 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 St Andrews Care Home
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2021Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2021Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hertfordshire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.