CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at St Clare's Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found conflicting instructions about diets for people at risk of choking, gaps in pressure care records and failures to follow the falls monitoring protocol. They also found enough staff, good safeguarding practices and medicines administered safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before admission. Staff had suitable training and worked with healthcare professionals, including speech and language therapists, tissue viability nurses, GPs and physiotherapists.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff knew people's preferences, involved them in decisions where possible and promoted independence.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Some care plans were outdated, used discourteous language or did not give enough guidance about distress and communication for people who could not verbalise their wishes. People were supported with relationships, activities, faith and end-of-life care.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality checks did not reliably identify incomplete or conflicting records, and actions and follow-up were not always documented. Relatives and staff generally felt able to speak with the manager and felt listened to.
What inspectors found, February 2023
St Clare's Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but gaps in risk records and management oversight could put people at risk.
This was the first inspection since the service became newly registered. Inspectors visited without notice on 10 and 12 January 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional, and reviewed care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good for effective care and caring. People and relatives described staff as kind and respectful. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine practices, suitable training, good access to healthcare and support for people's choices, dignity and independence.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for safe, responsive and well-led care. Care records sometimes gave conflicting instructions about swallowing risks and pressure area care. Some care plans were outdated or did not explain people's communication and distress needs. Management checks did not reliably find or follow up these problems.
The overall rating Requires Improvement means the service was not consistently meeting the required standards. Inspectors found breaches of safe care and treatment and good governance. The provider made some changes during the inspection, and CQC said it would monitor progress.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive interactions and found that staff protected people's dignity, privacy and independence.
“People were treated with dignity and respect, and their independence was promoted by staff.” from the report
Enough staff
People, relatives and staff said there were enough staff, and inspectors saw staff respond promptly to requests.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored and given safely and on time. Staff administering them had been trained and assessed as competent.
“People received their medicines in a person centred and timely way, staff were trained and assessed as competent before administering people's medicines.” from the report
Training and healthcare
Staff had relevant training and worked with outside health professionals. Inspectors found examples of people benefiting from this support.
“Staff had the knowledge and experience to support people effectively and received training relevant to their role.” from the report
Choking and pressure risks
seriousCare records gave conflicting advice about food textures for people with swallowing difficulties. Plans for preventing pressure damage were incomplete, and records showed a gap of over 23 hours between position changes for one person.
“Without this clear guidance, people were at a potential risk of choking incidents.” from the report
Falls monitoring
seriousStaff did not always record the checks required after a fall involving a minor head injury. Actions taken after repeated falls were also not initially recorded in the care plan.
“Staff did not document observations and checks to monitor the person in line with the provider's protocol.” from the report
Outdated care plans
needs fixingSome plans for people with learning disabilities used discourteous language and did not explain what caused distress or how staff should support communication.
“Care plans were not always written in a personalised way.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits did not always identify problems in care records. Action plans and follow-up were not consistently documented, limiting management oversight.
“The provider had not ensured there were adequate systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of services provided” from the report
- 01How have you updated care plans for people with swallowing difficulties, and how do you make sure kitchen staff receive the current diet instructions?
- 02How are pressure area care plans and repositioning records checked now, including what staff should do if specialist equipment fails?
- 03What changes have been made to post-fall checks and recording since the inspection?
- 04How have care plans for people with learning disabilities been rewritten to describe distress and communication needs respectfully and clearly?
- 05How are audit findings, actions and follow-up now recorded and shared with staff?
This was the first inspection of the newly registered service and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 2023 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's Care Home
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- March 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 January 2022.
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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful 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.