CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Annes Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff responded quickly when support was needed. Medicines, staffing, infection control and safeguarding arrangements were generally safe, although inspectors recommended more proactive falls prevention and noted that some safeguarding refresher training was overdue.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Leadership and governance systems had improved, communication was becoming more open, and the manager understood the service well. Inspectors found that conflict-of-interest procedures had not always been followed.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe care and improving leadership, but asked for better falls prevention and more person-centred records.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 7 December 2022. Inspectors reviewed Safe and Well-led, spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, observed care, and checked records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. People said they felt safe and supported. Medicines were administered safely, staffing was sufficient, infection controls were in place, and safeguarding arrangements had improved.
Inspectors identified areas still needing work. Care records needed more personal detail, the home needed stronger ways to reduce falls, safeguarding refresher training was not always up to date, and conflict-of-interest processes were not always followed.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and trusted staff. Staff were patient and responded promptly when people needed help.
“There is always someone here if I need help.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines administration was safe and records were clear. New audits and advice from external medicines specialists had improved practice after earlier errors.
“Medicines administration was safe and in line with good practice.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely. The home had reduced its use of agency staff and increased staffing at busy times.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs safely.” from the report
Improving leadership
Governance and communication had improved. The home planned further steps to involve relatives and residents and to give staff more responsibility.
“The registered manager had worked hard to ensure the culture was more open.” from the report
Clean environment
The premises were clean and completed refurbishment had improved some living areas. Work in other communal areas was still underway.
“The premises were clean.” from the report
Falls prevention
needs fixingStaff responded when people fell, but inspectors wanted more proactive and creative work to reduce the risk and number of falls. This was a recommendation, not a breach.
“The provider needed to implement more proactive strategies to try and reduce the number of falls.” from the report
Care records lacked personal detail
minorCare plans were up to date but did not always describe people's individual needs as fully as they could. The provider had plans to improve them.
“Records were not always as person centred as they could be.” from the report
Safeguarding training
needs fixingStaff had received safeguarding training, but refresher training was not always completed in line with the provider's own policy.
“Staff had received safeguarding training. This had not always been refreshed in line with the provider's policies.” from the report
Conflict-of-interest process
needs fixingThe provider had a conflict-of-interest policy but did not always follow it when investigating incidents. Inspectors recommended making investigations as open and independent as possible.
“They had not always acted in line with their conflict of interest policy in relation to ensure all processes were as open and independent as they could be.” from the report
- 01What specific changes have you made to reduce falls, and how do you check whether they are working?
- 02How have you improved the personal detail in each person's care plan?
- 03Are all safeguarding refresher courses now completed in line with your policy?
- 04How do you make sure investigations are open and independent when there could be a conflict of interest?
- 05Which refurbishment work is still outstanding, and how are you limiting its effect on residents?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection when calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 January 2023 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, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, PPE and support during the pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 9 December 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections, using PPE safely, following shielding and social distancing rules, and admitting people safely. They were also assured about testing, hygiene, the layout of the home and managing outbreaks.
The home had enough aprons, gloves and masks. Staff had training in putting on and taking off PPE. Relatives had given many compliments about staff support during the pandemic. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Infection prevention
Systems were in place to help prevent people, staff and visitors from catching and spreading infection.
“Systems were in place to help prevent people, staff and visitors from catching and spreading infection.” from the report
PPE and staff training
The home had enough protective equipment and staff had training in using it safely.
“There was sufficient PPE such as aprons, gloves and masks. Staff had undertaken training in putting on and taking off PPE.” from the report
Support during the pandemic
Relatives had given many compliments about staff dedication and the support provided during the pandemic.
“The home had received lots of compliments from relatives about the hard work and dedication staff had shown throughout the pandemic.” from the report
Policies and procedures
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach to policies and procedures. The report does not say that this led to a breach or enforcement action.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach in relation to their policies and procedures.” from the report
- 01How have you developed your infection prevention policies and procedures since the inspection?
- 02How do you currently prevent visitors from catching and spreading infections?
- 03How do you make sure staff use PPE safely, and when was their most recent training?
- 04How do you arrange testing for residents and staff?
- 05What is your current plan for preventing and managing an infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the report does not assess the other care questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 January 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 Annes Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 July 2015.
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
30 live-in carers within about an hour of North Tyneside
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 £950 to £1,130 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.