CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Cecilia's Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Staff understood how to keep people safe, but risk assessments did not always explain hazards and control measures clearly enough. Safety checks were carried out, although improvement actions were not always followed through.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had appropriate training, skills and supervision. People's needs were assessed and reviewed, although records about healthcare appointments and some best-interest decisions were not always clear.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's preferences and supported their independence, privacy and relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised to people's routines, preferences, communication needs and interests. People had access to activities, community links and support with complaints and end-of-life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team was approachable and respected. People, relatives and staff were involved in giving feedback, but the system for tracking actions from audits needed improvement.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good overall, but inspectors rated the home Requires Improvement for safety because risk assessments and checks were not always strong enough.
This was a scheduled inspection on 19 November and 10 December 2018. One inspector visited, with an expert by experience on the first day. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They also observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and was rated Good for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives were very positive about the care, and staff were described as kind, skilled and knowledgeable.
Safety was rated Requires Improvement. Risk assessments did not always give staff enough detail, some improvement actions were not tracked through to completion, and clearer information was needed about some medicines. The home acted on some issues during the inspection, including improving medicine instructions and environmental safety.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw people treated with kindness and dignity. Staff took time to understand people's preferences and communication.
“We observed people were treated with kindness and people and their relatives were positive about the staff's caring attitude.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's routines, likes and dislikes. Care plans recorded preferred routines and people were supported to keep relationships and hobbies.
“Everyone had their preferred routine recorded in their care plan so staff had enough information to provide a consistent approach which people liked.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff had completed induction and training and were judged competent and knowledgeable.
“Staff were competent, knowledgeable and skilled; and carried out their roles effectively.” from the report
Good end-of-life care
Staff supported people with compassion and dignity and worked with professionals to manage comfort and pain.
“It is a completely dignified experience, staff look for non-verbal cues of pain, maintain skin care.” from the report
Risk assessments lacked detail
seriousCare plans gave only basic information about some safety risks. Inspectors said evidence-based risk assessments were needed, including for falls.
“Evidence based risk assessments were not used to direct staff to understand hazards and control measures better.” from the report
Actions were not always completed
needs fixingThe home carried out many audits and checks, but did not always track identified actions until they were finished.
“Where actions were identified they were not always tracked to ensure they were completed.” from the report
Meal prompting was missed
needs fixingOn the first inspection day, some people did not receive the prompting they needed to eat. The manager changed the routine during the inspection.
“On day one of our inspection we saw some people did not receive the support they needed to be prompted and eat their meal.” from the report
Some records were unclear
minorRecords did not always clearly show best-interest decisions, powers of attorney, or whether healthcare appointments were up to date.
“Records were not always clear where decisions made had been made in people's best interests or that confirmation relatives had power of attorney in place to legally act on people's behalf.” from the report
- 01What evidence-based risk assessments are now used, especially for falls and distress linked to dementia?
- 02Has the new care plan system been introduced, and does it clearly record risks, healthcare appointments and best-interest decisions?
- 03How do you make sure every action from an audit is assigned, completed and checked?
- 04How do you make sure people who need prompting receive enough help to eat and drink?
- 05What changes have been made to help people living with dementia find their way around the home?
This was a scheduled inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises, care, medicines, records, staff and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 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.
Every inspection of St Cecilia's Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.