CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Anthony's Residential Home Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe staffing and kind care, but serious gaps in medicines, care records and management oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 29 November 2022. It followed concerns about management, safety, medicines, the kitchen, food portions and meal choice. Inspectors spoke with people, staff and a visiting professional, and checked care, medicines, training and management records.
The home had enough staff, people appeared relaxed with staff, and healthcare support was arranged when needed. Inspectors found the kitchen clean, with good portion sizes, meal choices and a five-star food hygiene rating. Staff supported people to make choices and to give consent to care.
However, medicines were not always stored or recorded safely. Some people did not have complete care plans or emergency evacuation plans. Checks on equipment and utilities were not reliable, and one staff file did not contain references. Management audits did not identify these problems, and people's views were not regularly collected.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection in 2019 to Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were all rated Requires Improvement. The report does not give separate ratings for Caring or Responsive.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and saw staff respond promptly to calls.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff employed and on duty to meet people's assessed needs.” from the report
Food and meal choice
The kitchen was clean, food portions were good and staff considered people's choices, appetites and dietary needs.
“Portion sizes were good, and consideration was given for people's individual choices and appetites.” from the report
Respect and choice
People were supported to make choices and to be as independent as possible. Staff sought consent before providing care.
“People were supported in accordance with the requirements of the MCA.” from the report
Healthcare support
Staff noticed changes in people's health and worked with healthcare professionals, including the GP practice.
“People's health conditions were being managed, and the staff engaged with other organisations to help provide consistent care.” from the report
Medicines safety
seriousA box of medicines awaiting return was left outside locked storage. Staff also did not record why some as-needed medicines were given or whether they worked.
“The management of medicines was not always safe.” from the report
Incomplete care records
needs fixingOne person had no formal care plan after four months. Other records did not always explain changes in health or what staff should do.
“One person had been admitted to the service for respite care. This person did not have a completed care plan in place after 4 months.” from the report
Poor management oversight
seriousAudits were incomplete and had not identified the problems found by inspectors. People's views were not regularly collected.
“The quality assurance and auditing systems were not effective in driving improvements in the service.” from the report
Unreliable safety checks
seriousThe gas safety check was overdue, the stair lift had no service certificate, and not everyone had an emergency evacuation plan. Some first-floor windows also lacked restrictors.
“Not all equipment and utilities were being checked regularly.” from the report
Environment needs attention
minorSome areas were cluttered, paintwork was damaged and information displayed in communal areas was out of date.
“The environment was cluttered in some areas.” from the report
- 01How are medicines awaiting return now kept securely, and how do you check that as-needed medicines are recorded properly?
- 02How do you make sure every person has a complete and current care plan, including people staying for respite care?
- 03When were the gas system and stair lift last serviced, and how do you track future safety checks?
- 04Does every person now have an emergency evacuation plan and have all first-floor windows been fitted with restrictors where needed?
- 05How are residents and relatives now asked for their views, and what changes have been made as a result?
This was an unannounced inspection prompted by concerns and it rated Safe, Effective and Well-led; the report does not give separate ratings for Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 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, November 2019
St Anthony's Residential Home Limited was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but some care plan reviews and end of life wishes were not fully recorded.
This was an unannounced planned inspection. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, a visitor, a healthcare professional, staff and the provider. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff training and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, a clean environment and staff who knew people well. People said they felt safe, were happy with their care and were treated with kindness and respect.
The home had fallen behind with its programme for reviewing care plans. It was working through the backlog, starting with people with the highest needs. Some records also lacked people's life histories, mental capacity information or end of life wishes. Inspectors made a recommendation about recording life histories and end of life wishes.
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as caring, friendly and supportive. Staff spent time talking with people and respected their choices and privacy.
“People were positive about staff and their caring attitude and told us they were treated with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found sufficient staff to meet people's assessed needs. People received help promptly and could use call bells when they needed assistance.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people's assessed needs.” from the report
Safe medicines and environment
People received medicines safely and on time. The home was clean, and equipment and utilities were regularly checked.
“People received their medicines safely and on time.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included people's needs and preferences, and staff knew people well. People could choose where and how they spent their time.
“People received personalised care because there was a stable staff team who knew people well and had a good understanding of each person's individual needs.” from the report
Overdue care plan reviews
needs fixingThe programme for monthly care plan reviews had fallen behind over the previous three months. A plan was in place to complete the reviews, with the highest needs prioritised.
“In the last three months this system had fallen behind and some care plans had not been reviewed in line with the provider's policy.” from the report
Incomplete personal and end of life information
needs fixingSome care plans did not include people's life histories. People's wishes about end of life support were not consistently asked for and recorded.
“People's views, before they needed end of life care, on the support they wanted at the end of their lives were not consistently sought and recorded.” from the report
- 01Have all care plans been reviewed since the inspection, and how often are they reviewed now?
- 02How will you record my relative's life history, interests and important personal preferences?
- 03How will you ask about and record my relative's wishes for end of life care?
- 04How do you record mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions in care plans?
- 05How will you tell the family about changes in my relative's health or care needs?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, and both the premises and the care provided were looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 November 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 Anthony's Residential Home Limited
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- December 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at St Anthony's Residential Home Limited →
- November 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at St Anthony's Residential Home Limited →
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.