CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Anthony
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, July 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements made after an earlier safety breach.
Inspectors visited on 30 and 31 January 2018. The first day was unannounced. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, staff were trained, and people received kind and personalised support.
At the previous inspection, the home had been rated Requires Improvement for safety and had breached Regulation 12. This inspection found that the provider had made the required improvements and met that legal requirement.
Clear risk management
Care plans and risk assessments gave staff detailed instructions for complex needs, including moving and handling, choking and skin care.
“Risks to people had been assessed and there was clear guidance for staff in how to support people.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff listening to people, adapting communication and respecting privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“People were cared for by kind and caring staff.” from the report
Personalised support
People were supported with activities, community involvement and daily choices that matched their interests and abilities.
“People were supported to try new things, develop skills, set goals and increase their levels of independence through reviews and monthly key worker meetings.” from the report
Improved safety
The provider acted on the earlier inspection findings. The newer care plans included more detailed guidance about safety risks.
“At this inspection on 30 and 31 January 2018 we found the provider had made improvements to comply with the legal requirement and the breach of regulation had been met.” from the report
Newer staff building relationships
minorSome newer staff had not yet built the same rapport with people as the more established staff. Managers said they were working on this and paired newer staff with experienced colleagues.
“One relative told us there was less rapport built with newer staff.” from the report
Building still being made homelier
minorInspectors noted that the large building and its décor would benefit from more personal touches. Redecoration and refurbishment were ongoing.
“The building was large and the acting manager and director of operations were aware that the building's size and décor would benefit from being more personalised to ensure that it was homelier for people living there.” from the report
- 01How do you help newer staff build strong relationships with my relative?
- 02What refurbishment or redecoration has been completed since the inspection, and what remains to be done?
- 03How would you assess and manage my relative's specific risks, such as moving and handling, choking, skin care or behaviours that may put them or others at risk?
- 04What specialist training would the staff supporting my relative have?
- 05How would my relative be involved in choosing activities, meals, personal routines and future goals?
This was a comprehensive inspection of the home, covering all five rated areas and checking whether improvements from the previous safety breach had been made. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 July 2018 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, April 2017
Rated Good overall; safe care Requires Improvement because risk assessments were not consistently robust, although medicines management improved.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 23 February 2017. Two inspectors looked mainly at whether the home had improved safety after the previous inspection. They reviewed six care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files and rotas, and observed medicines being given.
The home had improved its medicines systems. Medicines were stored and given safely, records had no unexplained gaps, and storage temperatures were checked. There were enough staff, recruitment checks were thorough, and staff knew how to respond to abuse and emergencies.
Inspectors found new concerns about risk assessments and care guidance. Instructions were not always clear enough for risks such as choking, skin breakdown, moving and handling, and hot water. This was a breach of Regulation 12, so the overall rating stayed Good but the safe rating stayed Requires Improvement.
Medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Records had no unexplained gaps, and staff competence was checked regularly.
“Medicines were stored, administered, recorded and disposed of safely.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff during the inspection, including at night and weekends. Recruitment checks were also completed before staff started.
“Staffing numbers remained sufficient to meet people's needs in a safe and timely manner.” from the report
Emergency safety
The home carried out checks on equipment, water temperatures and fire systems. People had personal emergency evacuation plans and took part in fire drills.
“People had personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEP) and staff and people were regularly involved in fire drills.” from the report
Warm interactions
Although some people could not say verbally whether they felt safe, inspectors observed open and warm interactions between people and staff.
“The interactions and communication with all of the staff were open and warm.” from the report
Incomplete risk guidance
seriousRisk assessments did not consistently explain what staff should do to manage choking, skin breakdown, moving and handling, and hot water risks. This led to a breach of Regulation 12.
“However, clear guidelines were not consistently in place to manage the risks associated with choking, skin breakdown, moving and handling and hot water.” from the report
- 01Have all residents' risk assessments now been updated with clear instructions for choking, skin breakdown, moving and handling, and hot water?
- 02What guidance is now used to recognise pain in people who have limited communication?
- 03How do you check that staff follow each person's moving and handling plan, including the correct sling size and attachments?
- 04What signs of choking or swallowing difficulty should staff look for, and when would a speech and language therapist be contacted?
- 05How do you make sure medicines records remain complete and that any medicine errors are reviewed?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of the Safe question, mainly checking action after the previous inspection, so the other areas were not reassessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 April 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 Anthony
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvement
- September 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 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.