CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St. Euphrasia's Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and managing infection risks. They found arrangements for visitors, social distancing, PPE, testing, cleaning and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, January 2021
St. Euphrasia's Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 15 December 2020. It checked infection prevention and control because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
Inspectors found good arrangements for visitors, social distancing, testing and the use of personal protective equipment. People who tested positive were allocated a designated carer and, where needed, a separate bathroom.
The home had regular discussions with residents about the pandemic and safety measures. Cleaning schedules were followed closely, including cleaning high-contact points three times a day.
The service was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all five areas of care, so the report does not give an overall quality rating.
Visitor arrangements
Visits usually took place in the parlour, helping visitors avoid the main residential area.
“Visits took place in the care home's parlour wherever possible, which avoided the need for visitors to enter the main residential area.” from the report
Separating infection risks
People who tested positive were allocated a designated carer. Separate bathroom arrangements were also used where needed.
“The manager allocated a designated carer to people who had tested positive for Covid-19, and they also allocated a bathroom to those people who did not have an ensuite room.” from the report
Cleanliness
Inspectors found a high standard of cleanliness, with regular daily, weekly and deep cleaning.
“The cleaning staff followed strict daily, weekly and deep cleaning schedules.” from the report
PPE and infection control
Staff were regularly reminded how to use PPE correctly, including putting it on and taking it off safely.
“The manager regularly reminded staff of the importance of good infection control practice including the correct donning and doffing procedures for PPE to prevent complacency.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are the visitor arrangements described in the report working now, including use of the parlour?
- 02How do you make sure staff continue to put on and take off PPE correctly?
- 03What arrangements would be used if my relative tested positive for Covid-19 or another infection?
- 04How often are high-contact areas cleaned now, including at weekends?
- 05How are residents and the nuns living in the attached convent included in testing and outbreak arrangements?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated in the other care areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 January 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, December 2019
St. Euphrasia's Care Home was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with some records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 7 and 8 November 2019. One inspector spoke with three people living in the home, six staff members and one visiting professional. The inspector also observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment, training, safety and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and cared for. Inspectors found enough suitably checked staff, safe medicines management, a clean home, good training and timely contact with health professionals.
Inspectors found staff were kind, respectful and responsive. Care was personalised, activities and spiritual support were available, and the manager was approachable. Some 'when required' medicines protocols did not clearly record when medicines should be given, although this was corrected during the inspection. Care records were also being updated to make decision-making and consent information clearer.
The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, published on 31 May 2019. This means the inspectors judged the service to be consistently managed and providing good care at the time of this inspection.
People felt safe
People said they felt very safe. Staff understood safeguarding and how to raise concerns.
“People reported feeling very safe and cared for in the home.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, treated them with dignity and supported their independence and choices.
“People were supported by a dedicated and caring staff team who knew them well and treated them with respect.” from the report
Food and mealtimes
People gave very positive feedback about the food, choice and availability. Inspectors saw calm and supportive mealtimes.
“There was very positive feedback about the food.” from the report
Positive management
The home had an established team, good staff morale and an approachable manager. Inspectors found an open and positive culture.
“The home was calm and relaxed on both days of the inspection and there was a positive community atmosphere where everyone knew each other well and went out of their way to help.” from the report
Some medicines records were unclear
needs fixingProtocols for 'when required' medicines did not always clearly record when the medicine should be given. The report says this was corrected during the inspection.
“However, whilst staff were aware when these medicines should be administered this was not always clearly recorded in the protocols.” from the report
Care records were being updated
needs fixingThe manager was updating care files so that information about people's decision-making and consent was clearer and in line with the Mental Capacity Act.
“The registered manager was in the process of updating the care files prior to the inspection and acknowledged that they needed to be brought into line with the Mental Capacity Act to ensure that information about people's decision making and consent was clearer.” from the report
- 01How were the 'when required' medicines protocols corrected after the inspection, and how are they checked now?
- 02Have the care files been fully updated to make decision-making and consent information clear?
- 03How would you support my relative's religious, spiritual and personal routines?
- 04What activities would be available for my relative, including if they have dementia or particular interests?
- 05How would you respond if my relative or our family raised a concern or complaint?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC areas, with care, premises, records, staffing and management systems examined. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 December 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. Euphrasia's Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 April 2016.
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 Manchester
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 £1,260 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.