CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St George's Hotel
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 gaps in fire safety practice, health monitoring, risk assessments, call-bell checks and medicines management. People felt safe and staff understood safeguarding responsibilities.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff worked with healthcare professionals. Training was generally up to date, but some practical training and actions following professional advice were not recorded.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Staff promoted privacy, dignity, choice and independence, although confidential records were not always securely stored.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans described people's needs and preferences, and staff responded to people's wishes. Activities were limited at times, but the provider said an activities coordinator and befriending service had since been introduced.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- People, relatives and staff were positive about the manager and provider. However, audits did not identify all the problems found by inspectors, and systems for recording care and staff updates were not consistent.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but safety checks, medicines and management systems were not reliable enough.
This was the first inspection of the newly registered service under the current provider. Inspectors visited unannounced on 10 and 11 October 2022, spoke with people, staff, relatives and a healthcare professional, and checked care, medicines and quality records.
People said they felt safe and were treated kindly. Staff knew people well, responded to their needs and worked with healthcare professionals. The service was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive care.
Inspectors found important gaps in safety. Fire evacuation practices had not been completed. Records about fluids, urine, health advice and care were sometimes missing or inaccurate. Medicines were not always handled or checked safely, increasing the risk of errors.
The overall rating and the Safe and Well-led ratings were Requires Improvement. The provider had started an improvement plan and reported changes after the inspection, but inspectors said they would continue to monitor the home.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives gave strong positive feedback about how staff treated them. Staff understood people's individual needs and promoted dignity and independence.
“People and relatives told us staff were caring and kind.” from the report
Prompt health support
Staff recognised health concerns and sought outside help promptly. Relatives said they were kept informed about changes in their family member's health.
“A healthcare professional told us staff knew people well and referred any concerns they had about a person's health promptly.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's choices and how they wanted to receive care. Bedrooms were personalised and people were supported to keep doing things that mattered to them.
“Peoples bedrooms were personalised and decorated to their taste.” from the report
Open relationships
People, relatives and staff said the manager and provider were approachable. The provider sought feedback and acted on some suggestions.
“People, relatives and staff reported having positive relationships with the registered manager and provider.” from the report
Fire and emergency readiness
seriousNo practice fire evacuations had taken place. Some staff were unclear about what to do in a fire, and the emergency grab bag was not easily available.
“Staff were not all clear about what action they should take if there was a fire in the service.” from the report
Medicines safety
seriousMedicines were sometimes taken out of their original packaging and carried for more than one person at a time. Staff competence checks and medicine audits were not regular or complete.
“This increased the risk of errors.” from the report
Incomplete health records
seriousFluid and urine records were not always completed correctly, and staff did not know how much some people should drink. This meant health risks could not be monitored properly.
“This meant people may have been at risk of dehydration.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingThe provider had audits and an improvement plan, but its checks did not identify every problem found during the inspection. Records showing care provided and staff updates were also incomplete.
“However, audits had not identified all the areas for improvement highlighted during the inspection.” from the report
Limited choice and activities
minorLunch choices did not always meet people's dietary needs or preferences. People also said there were not always many things to do, although the provider reported changes after the inspection.
“People and staff told us there weren't always a lot of things to do.” from the report
- 01What checks now confirm that every member of staff knows what to do in a fire, and when was the last practice evacuation?
- 02How are medicines now stored, given, offered as-needed and checked for staff competence?
- 03How do you record and review each person's fluid intake, urine output and actions recommended by healthcare professionals?
- 04What evidence can you show that all current risk assessments and care records are complete and up to date?
- 05What activities and meal choices are now available for people with particular interests, dietary needs or preferences?
This was the first comprehensive inspection of the newly registered service, covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control measures. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 November 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.
Every inspection of St George's Hotel
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- November 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 September 2021.
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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.