CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Clare House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People felt safe and staff were safely recruited, with enough staff to meet people's needs. However, risk assessments, medicines records and some environmental safety measures were not always adequate.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not covered by this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried over when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not covered by this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried over when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not covered by this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried over when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The manager was approachable and acted quickly when concerns were identified. However, governance and auditing systems had not reliably identified and managed risks.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and enough staff, but risks, medicines records and quality checks were not always managed well.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 26 April and 3 May 2022. One inspector and a medicines inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
People generally said they felt safe and praised the staff and atmosphere. Staffing levels were described as good, recruitment checks had been completed, and staff gave calm, person-centred support. The manager responded quickly to the concerns raised during the inspection.
However, care plans and risk assessments were not always updated when people's needs changed. Inspectors also found gaps in medicines records, environmental risks such as window restrictors, and areas that were not thoroughly clean. The service was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led, with a breach of Regulation 17.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and staff were available when needed. Staff also gave calm support to people who were distressed.
“People felt safe at the service and with the care and support staff provided.” from the report
Kind, person-centred care
People, relatives and professionals praised the staff, atmosphere and person-centred approach.
“There was a positive atmosphere within the service. Staff were kind and attentive” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff on duty to meet people's needs and appropriate recruitment checks had been completed.
“Recruitment checks were completed to help make sure suitable staff were employed.” from the report
Quick response to feedback
The manager took immediate action during the inspection to start addressing the concerns found.
“The registered manager was extremely responsive to feedback and took immediate action during the inspection to address the concerns identified.” from the report
Care plans and risk assessments
needs fixingSome care plans and risk assessments lacked detail or had not been updated as people's needs changed. This could leave staff without up-to-date guidance.
“People's care plans and risk assessments had not been reviewed and updated as their needs changed.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingInspectors found several recording problems, including instructions about timing, thickeners, medicine patches, storage temperatures and people's preferences.
“Instructions for medicines which should be given at specific times were not recorded.” from the report
Environmental safety and cleanliness
needs fixingSome replaced windows did not have suitable opening restrictors, and some areas were not thoroughly clean. The provider started addressing these issues during the inspection.
“Some environmental risks had not been effectively identified and managed.” from the report
Quality monitoring
seriousAudits had not found the problems identified by inspectors. The home needed stronger systems to identify and reduce risks proactively.
“Although there was no evidence people had been harmed, because of these concerns, effective systems had not been established to assess, monitor and mitigate risks to the health and safety of people using the service.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act records
needs fixingBedroom doors locked automatically when people left. The home had not recorded the mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions needed to show this was the least restrictive option.
“mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had not been recorded to make sure this was in each person's best interests and the least restrictive option.” from the report
- 01Have all care plans and risk assessments been reviewed and updated when people's needs change?
- 02How are medicines given at the correct times, recorded safely and checked for storage temperatures and patch application sites?
- 03Have robust window-opening restrictors now been fitted and have all areas of the home been thoroughly cleaned?
- 04What new audits or checks are in place to identify safety and medicines problems before an inspection?
- 05How are mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions recorded for restrictions such as automatically locking bedroom doors?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings carried over from the previous inspection published on 19 December 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 July 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, December 2018
St Clare House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with effective management.
This was an unannounced inspection. One inspector and an Expert by Experience reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, rotas, complaints and quality checks. They spoke with people living at the home, visitors, staff and the manager.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, received suitable care and were supported by kind staff.
The report says the home remained Good since the previous inspection. Inspectors found no serious risks or concerns and said the home’s systems, staffing, medicines management and quality checks were working well.
Staffing and safety
Staffing was adjusted to people's dependency needs, appointments and social activities. Inspectors saw that people's needs were met promptly.
“Staffing levels were monitored along with people's dependency needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff communicate with kindness, protect privacy and support people who were anxious.
“We saw staff spoke with people who used the service with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, likes, dislikes and life histories. Staff used this information to provide individual support and conversation.
“People's care plans were individualised, detailed and contained information about their life and family histories” from the report
Quality checks
The management team used audits, feedback and meetings to monitor the service. Inspectors found that issues identified through these systems were acted on.
“A full range of checks and audits were undertaken to monitor the quality of service provided.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and review my relative's specific risks, such as falls, malnutrition or skin damage?
- 02How will you support my relative's dietary needs, including any swallowing difficulties or need for help to eat and drink?
- 03How will you communicate with my relative if they have dementia or need information in a different format?
- 04How are changes in a person's needs shared with staff at the start of each shift?
- 05How would you involve our family in decisions about care, complaints or end of life wishes?
This was an unannounced inspection looking at the overall quality of the service and all five CQC questions; the report gives two different dates for the inspection visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 December 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.
Every inspection of St Clare House
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- July 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 December 2010.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Kingston upon Hull, City of
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 £1,020 to £1,350 a week. 12 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared 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.