CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at St Catherines Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2019
St Catherines Nursing Home is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no serious concerns.
Inspectors carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection in December 2018. They spoke with people using the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care and checked care records, staff training, rotas, audits and other management records.
The home was judged Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines support, clean surroundings and suitable risk assessments.
People were described as receiving kind and respectful care. Staff supported people's choices, food and drink, healthcare, activities, relationships and end of life wishes. The home listened to complaints and used audits and feedback to improve.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's assessed needs. Medicines were given by trained staff whose competence had been checked.
“There were enough staff to ensure people's needs were met safely and in a timely manner.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and treated them as individuals. Inspectors saw staff protect people's dignity, privacy and independence.
“Staff were kind, caring and friendly. They respected and promoted people's privacy, dignity, and independence.” from the report
Good staff training
Staff received training in areas including dementia and end of life care. New care staff worked towards the Care Certificate where needed.
“Staff received training in a wide range of topics, such areas as dementia and end of life care” from the report
Active improvement
The manager used meetings, feedback and audits to identify improvements. Examples included better Wi-Fi, electronic care records and changes suggested by people living at the home.
“The service was constantly looking for ways to improve.” from the report
Care plans were not familiar to everyone
minorNone of the people spoken with knew about their care plans, although they said staff consulted them about their care. Families should check how plans are explained and shared.
“None of the people we spoke with were aware of their care plans, but all said the staff consulted them about their care” from the report
Previous food hygiene improvements
needs fixingThe Food Standards Agency had rated the home as needing improvement when it visited in September 2018. The manager said the issues had been addressed and the agency had been told about the improvements.
“They had rated the service '2 improvement necessary' when they last visited in September 2018.” from the report
- 01What food hygiene issues led to the Food Standards Agency rating of '2 improvement necessary', and what evidence can you show that they have been resolved?
- 02How are residents and relatives shown their care plans, and how can they request changes?
- 03How do you review staffing levels when people's needs change, including at night?
- 04How are medicines, pain relief and swallowing or choking risks monitored for my relative?
- 05How will my relative's activities, religious or cultural needs and end of life wishes be recorded and reviewed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 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, September 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records not always completed properly.
This was an unannounced inspection on 07 and 08 September 2016. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and the provider. They reviewed care plans and staff files, watched care in communal areas and checked how people experienced the service.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicines management, trained staff, good support with health needs and food, and care that respected people's dignity and choices.
The home had improved since the previous inspection on 10 November 2015. It was now meeting the required standards for infection control. Inspectors did find that some food and fluid records were not completed as required, and this was raised with the provider.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough suitably experienced staff and safe systems for storing, giving and checking medicines.
“There were enough suitably experienced, skilled and qualified staff available at all times to meet people's needs safely and effectively in a calm and patient way.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them in a calm way that protected their dignity and privacy.
“People were cared for and supported in a kind and compassionate way by staff that knew them well and were familiar with their needs.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines and preferences. The home offered activities suited to people's interests and abilities.
“People received personalised care and support that met their individual needs.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff received induction, training, supervision and opportunities to develop skills in areas such as dementia, wound care and nutrition.
“Staff were also encouraged and supported to obtain nationally recognised vocational qualifications and take part in additional training to aid both their personal and professional development.” from the report
Improved infection control
The provider had addressed the infection control problems found at the previous inspection and was meeting the required standards in this area.
“At this inspection improvements had been made in those areas, we found that the provider was now meeting the required standards in relation to infection control.” from the report
Incomplete care records
needs fixingStaff were not always completing people's charts as required. One person's food and fluid chart had not been updated properly, although the provider said this would be reviewed.
“We found that staff were not always completing people's charts as required.” from the report
Busy periods
minorSome staff said that an extra member of staff could help at busy times. Inspectors still found staffing sufficient during the inspection.
“some felt at busy times they could benefit from another pair of hands.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure food and fluid charts are completed fully and checked?
- 02How do you decide whether staffing levels are enough during busy times?
- 03What changes were made after the previous inspection's infection control concerns?
- 04How will you keep me or my relative involved in care planning and reviews?
- 05What activities would be available for someone with my relative's interests and abilities?
This inspection covered all five CQC questions and gave a rating for the overall service; it also checked improvements since the previous inspection on 10 November 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 September 2016 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 Catherines Nursing Home
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
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 7 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.