CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Anne's Care Home
Not yet rated: the CQC has not published a rated inspection for this home, which is usual for a new registration.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control, testing, visiting and communication arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 19 March 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that visitors, people living in the home and staff were protected through testing, personal protective equipment, hand sanitiser, cleaning and social distancing. Visiting was by appointment, with rapid testing and individually packed protective equipment.
The home kept its infection control policies up to date. Families were kept informed through video calls and emails. Inspectors also saw staff spending time with people who mostly stayed in their rooms.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a full quality rating or ratings for all five areas.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had effective arrangements to prevent and manage infection, including suitable protective equipment and hygiene measures.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
Visits were arranged safely, with appointments, rapid COVID-19 testing and individually packed protective equipment. Extra visits could be arranged in exceptional circumstances.
“Visitors were given an individually packed Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) pack which reduced the risk of cross contamination.” from the report
Communication with families
The home used several ways to communicate with families and made its infection control policies available online and on paper.
“Communication was open and transparent with families and took place in a range of ways including video calls and emails.” from the report
Contact with people
Although most people spent their time in their own rooms, inspectors saw staff regularly entering rooms and spending time with them.
“We observed staff frequently entering people's rooms and enjoying time with them.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently tested and what protective equipment are they given?
- 02How are people supported to stay socially connected if they spend most of their time in their rooms?
- 03How often are people living here and staff tested for COVID-19 now?
- 04How do you manage visiting in exceptional circumstances, such as when someone is nearing the end of their life?
- 05Where can I read your current infection prevention and control policy?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it did not assess the other four quality areas and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 March 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.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but safety systems needed improvement.
This was a planned comprehensive inspection over two days. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff, managers and professionals. They observed care, looked around the home and checked care plans, medicines, training, staffing and quality records.
People and relatives gave positive feedback. They said people felt safe, well cared for and that their needs were met. Inspectors found a warm, friendly atmosphere, a clean and well-maintained home, personalised care and staff who treated people with dignity and respect.
The main weakness was safety recording and monitoring. Some pressure-area care plans, fluid records and as-required medicines records were incomplete or lacked detail. There were also issues with fire training, water temperature checks, secure medicine storage and infection-control arrangements. The provider had addressed or was working on several issues during or after the inspection.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement, so the home had strengths but did not consistently demonstrate that all safety systems were fully effective.
Kind, respectful care
People and relatives described the care positively. Staff knew people as individuals and supported their dignity, choices and independence.
“People were happy living at the home and reported that their needs were fully met, and they felt well cared for.” from the report
Personalised support
Care was tailored to people's needs, preferences and communication requirements. People and relatives were involved in care planning and reviews.
“People received personalised support that was responsive to their needs and preferences.” from the report
Clean and homely setting
Inspectors found the home clean and well maintained, with a homely design and personalised bedrooms.
“The home was clean and well maintained throughout.” from the report
Good access to healthcare
People were supported to see health professionals when needed, and staff followed professional advice.
“People were supported to access healthcare services when they needed this.” from the report
Positive management culture
People, relatives and staff found the management approachable and supportive. The home used feedback, meetings and audits to make improvements.
“The service had a positive, person-centred, open and inclusive culture.” from the report
Incomplete pressure-area records
seriousSome plans did not say clearly how often people should be repositioned, and some records conflicted. Staff knew the correct procedures and no one had pressure sores, but the records needed improvement.
“These did not always contain specific detail about how often people should be helped to reposition themselves.” from the report
Fluid intake monitoring
seriousSome fluid records had no target amount, were not totalled each day or did not record action taken when intake was low. The provider said this had been identified and was being improved.
“Some records did not always include a target amount and daily quantities were not always totalled so they could be compared with the target amount.” from the report
Medicines recording and storage
seriousRecords did not always explain why as-required medicines were given, and care plans did not always explain when or how much to give. Some topical medicines and thickening powders were not securely stored on the first inspection day.
“When people were given PRN medicine, the reason why this had been given was not always recorded.” from the report
Fire and infection-control gaps
needs fixingNot all staff had up-to-date fire-safety training. A broken sluice machine created possible additional risks that had not been assessed, and some damaged surfaces were difficult to clean.
“This presented possible additional risks which had not been assessed and planned for.” from the report
Care planning detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not contain enough information about people's health needs, and end-of-life wishes were recorded in very little detail.
“There was very little information in care plans about how people would like to be supported when they reach this point in their lives.” from the report
- 01How are you now checking that fluid targets are recorded, daily totals are completed and action is documented when someone drinks too little?
- 02How do you record and review repositioning plans for people at risk of pressure sores?
- 03How do you make sure as-required medicines have clear instructions and that the reason for giving them is recorded?
- 04Has all staff completed up-to-date fire-safety training, and how are water temperatures and equipment safety checked now?
- 05How will you record and discuss each person's wishes for end-of-life care?
This was the first comprehensive inspection since the new provider took over, and inspectors assessed all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 May 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 St Anne's Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 February 2018.
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
37 live-in carers within about an hour of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
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 £1,000 to £1,340 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We could not have managed without her calm, reassuring presence and practical knowledge and skill in caring and supporting both my husband and the family and I.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.