CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at St George's Witham Nursing 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
- Some environmental and health risks were not assessed or recorded clearly enough. Medicine record amendments and stock balances were not always recorded correctly, although staff were trained to give medicines and infection control practices were generally assured.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Not all staff had up-to-date mandatory or specialist training, and supervision records were unclear. Care plans did not always give enough detail about people's health needs, although staff supported eating, drinking and access to healthcare.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, respect and dignity. People were offered choices, and relatives said staff knew people well and maintained good relationships with them.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- People and relatives were not always clearly involved in care planning and reviews. Activity plans and end of life plans did not always record people's personal wishes and preferences in enough detail.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality audits were not detailed or relevant enough and did not identify important concerns. People, relatives and staff nevertheless spoke positively about the culture and the manager's approachability.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but concerns about safety records, staff training, personalised care and management oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 June 2023. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was caring, and staff were described as kind, respectful and familiar with people's needs. People were supported with food, healthcare, visitors and infection prevention. Relatives and staff also spoke positively about the manager and the home's atmosphere.
However, inspectors found that some safety risks and medicine records were not properly documented. Care plans did not always explain people's needs, choices or activities in enough detail. Staff training and supervision records were incomplete, and quality checks did not reliably find problems. The overall rating and four of the five question ratings were Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff taking time to listen and respond respectfully. Relatives also said staff knew people well and had good relationships with them.
“We observed staff taking their time, listening to people, and responding in a respectful manner.” from the report
Safe recruitment
The required employment checks had been completed before staff started work.
“The provider had completed the appropriate employment checks prior to staff starting work to ensure they were safely recruited.” from the report
Support from health professionals
The home responded to changes in people's health and made referrals when needed. Health professionals gave positive feedback about communication with the staff team.
“The provider worked in partnership with a number of different health and social care professionals.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to keep in touch with friends and family. Relatives were seen visiting and said they felt welcome.
“People were supported to stay in touch with friends and family and we observed relatives visiting throughout the inspection.” from the report
Staff training and supervision
seriousSome staff had not completed or renewed training in areas including falls, pressure care, swallowing difficulties and dementia. Supervision records did not show clearly whether staff were receiving regular support.
“The provider had not ensured staff were suitably trained and supported.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits often showed full compliance but failed to identify problems found during the inspection. This meant managers did not have a reliable picture of safety and care quality.
“The provider's processes for monitoring the quality and safety of the service were not robust.” from the report
Risk and medicine records
needs fixingSome safety risks were not recorded in personalised assessments, including an unguarded steep staircase. Medicine record amendments and stock balances were also not always recorded correctly.
“People's medicine stock balances had not always been accurately carried forward on their MAR charts to show how much medicine was in stock.” from the report
Care plans lacked personal detail
needs fixingCare plans did not always explain people's physical or mental health needs, choices and preferences. People and relatives were not always clearly involved in planning and reviewing care.
“People and their relatives were not always involved in planning and reviewing their care.” from the report
Activities were not always personalised
needs fixingThe home offered activities, but records did not give enough detail about what individuals enjoyed or how to support people cared for in bed to avoid isolation.
“There was a lack of clear information about what options staff could suggest in order to minimise the risk of people being isolated.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to complete and keep up to date training in falls, pressure care, swallowing difficulties and dementia?
- 02How are you now checking that safety risks, including environmental risks, are recorded in personalised risk assessments?
- 03How are medicine record amendments and stock balances checked for accuracy?
- 04How will you involve residents and relatives in care plan reviews and record their choices and preferences?
- 05What personalised activities are available for people who spend much of their time in bed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, the premises and care provided, with infection prevention and control also reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 August 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 George's Witham Nursing Home
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- August 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at St George's Witham Nursing Home →
- November 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 October 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.