CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at St George's Care Homes
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found safe systems for medicines, infection control, risk assessment, staffing and learning from incidents, although some evacuation plans needed updating.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected in detail during this visit. Its rating was carried over from the last inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected in detail during this visit. Its rating was carried over from the last inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected in detail during this visit. Its rating was carried over from the last inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear leadership, regular staff meetings and effective quality checks. Relatives and staff said they had confidence in the leadership, although some relatives had not always been involved in care decisions.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring care and stronger leadership, with some records still needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection visit on 26 April and 5 May 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found people felt safe, there were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, and infection control had improved. Staff were described as kind and supportive.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published in December 2021. The provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Inspectors also found some personal emergency evacuation plans were out of date. The manager took immediate action, and a programme was under way to improve care records.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were also completed.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were ordered, stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff had training and competency checks.
“Medication management procedures were in place and medicines were routinely ordered, safely stored, administered and disposed of in accordance with current guidance.” from the report
Improved infection control
The home had systems to prevent and manage infections, including COVID-19. Inspectors said the previous breach relating to infection control had been resolved.
“There were safe systems to manage and monitor the prevention and control of infection including COVID19.” from the report
Stronger leadership
The new manager and provider had introduced quality checks, action plans and regular reviews to improve the service.
“The provider had effective quality monitoring systems in place. Action plans were produced from audits and they were used to continually review and improve the service.” from the report
Family involvement
minorSome relatives said they had not always been involved in their loved one's care. They said recent management changes had brought more open and ongoing communication.
“Some relatives said they were not always involved in their loved ones care but recent management changes had made them feel reassured by open and ongoing communication from the registered manager and provider.” from the report
- 01Have all personal emergency evacuation plans now been updated to reflect each person's needs?
- 02How are you improving care records, including information about life stories and personal preferences?
- 03How will my family member and our family be involved in care decisions and reviews?
- 04How do you check that there are enough staff on each shift, including when agency staff are used?
- 05How do you check that medicines are given safely and that staff remain competent?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other key question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 July 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.
What inspectors found, December 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and safe medicines, but gaps in infection control and risk records created safety concerns.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 25 and 30 November 2021. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led. They spoke with people, staff and relatives, observed care, checked five people's care and medicines records, and reviewed staffing, incident and management records.
The home was clean, people said they felt safe, and medicines were managed safely. Staff were kind and spent time supporting people. Staffing numbers were considered appropriate, but the home used a high volume of agency staff.
Inspectors found that COVID-19 testing was not always carried out in line with government guidance. Some risks, including falls and malnutrition, were not fully assessed or monitored. Care records had missing or inaccurate information, and some fire doors were not safe or properly risk assessed.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. This inspection found breaches of Regulation 12 about safe care and treatment. The provider was asked for an action plan and the CQC said it would monitor progress and return to inspect.
Kind interactions
People appeared relaxed and happy with staff. Staff spent time chatting with people and supported them when they became distressed.
“We observed kind and caring interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Inspectors found that medicines were ordered, stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff had training and competency checks.
“People's medicines were safely managed.” from the report
Safeguarding
Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. Safeguarding incidents were reported to the local authority and the CQC.
“Staff we spoke with knew where to report their concerns.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and tidy, including bedrooms and communal areas.
“The home was clean and tidy with beds made, clean bedrooms and communal areas.” from the report
Infection testing
seriousCOVID-19 testing was not always carried out in line with government guidance. The provider introduced a new recording and monitoring system during the inspection.
“People were not always protected by robust systems for the testing of COVID-19” from the report
Risk records
seriousRisks such as falls and malnutrition were not always fully assessed, reviewed or recorded. Fluid monitoring records had gaps, and some care notes were incomplete or inaccurate.
“Risks to people were not always fully assessed, monitored and regularly reviewed in line with their risk management plans.” from the report
Fire doors
seriousSome first-floor fire doors could not be opened readily in an emergency. Two ground-floor fire doors could be opened by residents and had not been risk assessed.
“We saw the fire doors on the first floor could not be opened readily if there were an emergency and people had to evacuate.” from the report
Agency staff and changing faces
minorStaffing numbers were considered appropriate, but a high percentage of agency staff were used. One person said there were many changes in staff.
“I see a lot of agency and they are very good like the permanent staff, but we see a lot of changes.” from the report
People not always involved
needs fixingPeople were not always involved in care planning, and care plans did not consistently record how people preferred to be supported.
“The provider did not always involve people in their care planning and people's voice was missing from discussions about what someone's care should look like.” from the report
- 01How are you checking that COVID-19 testing is now carried out and recorded in line with government guidance?
- 02How do you monitor and review falls, malnutrition and fluid intake for each resident?
- 03What has been done to make sure all fire doors can be used safely in an emergency?
- 04How are care records being checked for missing or inaccurate entries during the move from paper to computer records?
- 05How will residents be involved in writing and reviewing their care plans?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Caring, Effective and Responsive were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 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.
Every inspection of St George's Care Homes
11 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2018Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2018Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 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
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Wirral
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 £1,230 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.