CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Anne's Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm, and inspectors found enough staff. Medicines were administered safely, but the systems for managing them were not always in line with current best practice.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and experience to meet people's needs, and people were supported with food, activities and healthcare. Some information was not shared with health professionals as promptly as it could have been.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. People were supported to make everyday choices, communicate their preferences and develop independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and people took part in activities, education, community life and holidays. Staff knew people's needs and communication methods well.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had open management, staff felt supported and quality checks were in place. Leaders were aware of several areas needing improvement and were taking action.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some medicines, legal safeguards and record-keeping improvements still needed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 2 and 3 May 2019. One inspector spoke with five people, staff, the provider and health and social care professionals. They observed care and looked at care records, staff files, medicines, audits and the home environment.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they were happy and felt safe. Inspectors saw kind staff who knew people well, supported choice and promoted independence. Staffing levels allowed people to take part in activities and go into the community.
The home had identified some improvements. Medicines systems were not fully in line with current best practice. Some mental capacity records were not decision-specific, and two Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications had expired. Some information sharing and incident records were not always timely or complete.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw compassionate care and found that staff knew people very well. Privacy, dignity and personal communication preferences were respected.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Enough staff
Staffing levels met people's needs and supported regular access to the community and activities.
“People were supported by enough staff to meet their needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's individual needs and wishes. People had activities, communication tools and routines suited to them.
“People's care plans were personalised to their individual needs and wishes.” from the report
Medicines systems
needs fixingMedicines were administered safely, but the systems for managing them did not always reflect current best practice. The manager had already sought advice from a pharmacist.
“However, systems to manage medicines were not always in line with current best practice.” from the report
Expired legal safeguards
needs fixingTwo Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications had expired and had not yet been reapplied for because of the manager's absence. Staff said they would put this right.
“However, due to the recent registered managers absence two DoLS had expired and not been reapplied for.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingStaff understood how to support people who lacked capacity, but the paperwork did not always record discussions properly or relate decisions to a specific choice.
“However, paperwork was not reflecting these discussions with other people important to the person nor were they decision specific.” from the report
Sharing health information
needs fixingHealth professionals said information was sometimes shared later than needed. One person's coughing during meals had not been referred to the relevant health professional until the inspection.
“However, there were occasions they felt the information could be shared in a more timely manner with them to support the work they were doing.” from the report
Incident records
minorRecords did not always show all the actions taken after incidents, including staff debriefing. The home planned to review how this was recorded.
“However, there were occasions records had not always reflected all the actions taken including debriefing the staff.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to medicines systems since the inspection, and how are they checked now?
- 02Were the two expired Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications reapplied for, and what is the current position?
- 03How do you now make sure mental capacity records are decision-specific and include discussions with important people?
- 04How do you make sure health information is shared promptly with professionals?
- 05How are actions, including staff debriefing, recorded after incidents?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that assessed all five CQC questions and the overall quality and safety of the care home. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 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, May 2017
St Anne's Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found that earlier recruitment and monitoring problems had been fully addressed.
This was an announced focused inspection. One inspector visited, toured the home, spoke with four people, four staff members and the registered manager, and checked six staff recruitment files, audits, policies and procedures.
The visit looked only at whether the home was well-led. Inspectors found that staff files now contained the required checks, including employment histories, proof of identity and DBS checks. The home had also put regular quality checks in place, including reviews of accidents, incidents and people's needs.
People and staff said management listened and provided support. Inspectors found that the home worked with families, health professionals, social workers and other community services. The home was rated Good overall and Good for well-led.
Staff recruitment checks
Inspectors found that all staff files had been audited and contained the required recruitment evidence. Where a risk was identified, the manager recorded how it would be managed.
“All staff files included all relevant documents, such as a full employment history, proof of identity and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home had regular audits with clear actions and review dates. Monthly checks of accidents and incidents helped identify patterns and actions to support people's well-being.
“The system used meant trends could be identified and relevant actions taken to ensure people's well-being.” from the report
People could speak up
People and staff told inspectors that management listened and acted when issues or requests were raised. Examples included arranging a farm visit and responding to a request for more training.
“Management supported an open and inclusive culture for both people and staff.” from the report
Links with families and services
The home worked with families, social workers, health professionals and training providers. Inspectors found that these links helped people remain supported and take part in activities such as college.
“People were also supported in maintaining close links with their family and friends.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Are all current staff files still complete, including employment histories, proof of identity and DBS checks?
- 02How often are quality audits carried out, and how are outstanding actions followed up?
- 03How are accidents and incidents reviewed now, and what changes have resulted from any patterns found?
- 04How will the home involve our family member's social worker, health professionals and family in their support?
- 05How are requests or concerns from people living in the home recorded and acted on?
This was a focused inspection of Well-led only; the other areas were not assessed in this report and the earlier comprehensive inspection report should be read for them. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 May 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 St Anne's Residential Care Home
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at St Anne's Residential Care Home →
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at St Anne's Residential Care Home →
- November 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 January 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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.