CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Anthony's
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, February 2021
St Anthony's was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection controls, but staff deployment between areas needed improvement.
This was a targeted inspection on 13 January 2021. Inspectors checked infection prevention and control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic. The visit was announced 10 minutes before arrival.
Inspectors were assured that visitors, admissions, shielding, social distancing, PPE, testing, the infection control policy, hygiene and the building layout were being managed safely. Staff numbers were enough to meet people's needs safely.
The home had closed to visitors, managed professional access, supported video calls with families, and required people moving in or returning from hospital to isolate. However, staff were not deployed to some areas in a way that would help prevent or manage outbreaks effectively.
The service was inspected but not rated. This was not a full assessment of all five areas of care, so the report does not provide a current overall quality rating.
PPE and distancing
Staff were using PPE correctly and people in communal areas were kept socially distanced.
“Staff were wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) correctly. Social distancing was observed between people who were sitting in communal areas.” from the report
Testing
Testing for staff and residents was organised and carried out regularly.
“Testing for staff and people was well organised and regularly done.” from the report
Safe admissions
People moving into the home or returning from hospital were required to isolate for a set period, even after a negative test.
“When people moved into the home or returned from hospital, they were required to isolate in their rooms, for a set period of time, even if they had a negative test.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found that staffing levels were enough to meet people's needs safely.
“The provider ensured there were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs safely.” from the report
Staff deployment
needs fixingStaff were not deployed to certain areas in a way that would help prevent or manage infection outbreaks. Inspectors signposted the provider to resources to improve its approach.
“Staff were not deployed to certain areas in the home for making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to staff deployment between areas since the inspection?
- 02How do you now prevent and manage infection outbreaks between different areas of the home?
- 03How are staff and residents tested, and how often?
- 04How would my relative keep in touch with family if visitors were restricted?
- 05What isolation arrangements would apply if my relative moved in or returned from hospital?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with the Safe question inspected but not rated; the other questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 February 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, July 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with minor issues about bedroom door locks and an odour.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 and 21 June 2017. The inspector observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care plans, medicine records, training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably skilled staff, safe medicine practices, regular care plan reviews and kind, respectful support.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in July 2016. Earlier problems with medicines, maintenance and cleanliness had been addressed. Activities had also improved, and several areas had been redecorated.
Safe medicines
Medicines were documented accurately, stock levels were correct and staff followed safe procedures. This addressed problems found at the previous inspection.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and medicines were now managed effectively and safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw calm, caring interactions. Staff understood people's needs and supported their privacy, dignity and independence.
“We saw kind and caring interaction between staff and the people who used the service.” from the report
Enough staff
There were enough experienced and skilled staff to meet people's needs. Inspectors saw staff spending time talking with people without rushing.
“There were enough suitably experienced, skilled and qualified staff available at all times to meet people's needs safely and effectively.” from the report
Improved activities
The activity programme had improved since the previous inspection, with an activity worker, music sessions and events such as cookery and celebrations.
“At this inspection we found this had improved.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff felt able to raise concerns. The manager used meetings, individual feedback and regular audits to monitor the service.
“There was an open and respectful culture in the home and relatives and staff were comfortable to speak with the registered manager if they had a concern.” from the report
Bedroom door locks
needs fixingBedroom doors did not have a facility for people to lock them. The provider agreed to ask residents whether they wanted keys and to consider changes.
“We found that the type of bedroom doors provided did not have the facility for people to lock their doors.” from the report
Odour in the lobby
minorInspectors noticed an unpleasant odour in the lobby. The provider had identified it and was replacing the flooring, but the issue was still present during the inspection.
“We noted that there was an unpleasant odour in the lobby area of the home.” from the report
- 01Do all bedroom doors now have working locks or another way for residents to secure their personal belongings?
- 02What checks are now in place to make sure medicines continue to be recorded, stored and administered safely?
- 03Was the lobby flooring replaced, and has the unpleasant odour been fully resolved?
- 04How often are the cleanliness, maintenance and safety audits completed now?
- 05What activities are currently available, and how are residents' interests used to plan them?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five quality areas, and it checked improvements required after the July 2016 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 July 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's
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.