CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at St Georges Park
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, medicines were handled safely, there were enough staff, and infection prevention arrangements were satisfactory.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective governance, regular feedback opportunities, open communication and good partnership working with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, December 2022
St Georges Park was rated Good; the focused inspection found safe care and effective management, with no evidence that people were at risk from the concerns reviewed.
Inspectors visited without notice on 10 and 11 November 2022. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, audits and other management records.
The inspection was triggered by concerns about infection prevention, staffing and risk management. Inspectors found risks were assessed and managed, medicines were handled safely, staffing levels met people's needs, and infection control arrangements were satisfactory. Staff were recruited safely and trained, including in safeguarding.
The home was also found to be well managed. Staff, relatives and professionals said communication was good and concerns could be raised. The overall rating remains Good, the same as at the previous inspection published on 18 June 2021.
Risk management
Care and risk records guided staff, and managers reviewed daily notes and incidents. Lessons from accidents and incidents were shared and acted on.
“Risks to people were managed, assessed and mitigated appropriately.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were managed by trained staff, given at the right time and stored safely. People were offered pain relief in line with their wishes and professional guidance.
“Medicines were managed safely by suitably trained staff.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and saw evidence that recruitment checks had been completed.
“There were enough staff available to meet the needs of people using the service.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured about the home's infection prevention arrangements, including the use of protective equipment and its response to infection risks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Management and governance
Quality audits and checks supported oversight of care, infection control and safeguarding. Staff and professionals said managers responded to concerns and advice.
“Governance processes were effective and helped to hold staff to account, keep people safe and provide good quality care and support.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you check that staffing levels remain sufficient for my relative's needs, including at night?
- 02How are my relative's individual risks reviewed and updated after a fall, accident or change in health?
- 03How do you check that medicines, including pain relief, are given at the right time and recorded correctly?
- 04What infection prevention measures are currently in place, and how do you manage any outbreak?
- 05How can relatives attend meetings or give feedback if they cannot attend during the day?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 December 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.
What inspectors found, June 2021
St Georges Park was rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-managed care, with some infection-control issues to address.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 11 May 2021. Inspectors looked at Safe, Effective and Well-led after concerns about staffing, nursing care, food and drink, infection control and management. They spoke with people, a relative and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems and suitable staff training. People’s care plans and risk assessments were reviewed, people received food and drinks suited to their needs, and healthcare referrals were made promptly. People said they felt safe, and their views were used in care planning.
Some infection-control arrangements were only partly assured. Staff risk assessments had not been updated for new eye-protection guidance, and a shower room had damaged flooring, exposed pipework and a rusted shower chair. The risk was addressed during the visit by agreeing to stop using the shower room until it was refurbished.
The overall rating was Good, as were Safe, Effective and Well-led. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used in the overall rating.
Staffing and safety
Inspectors saw a good staff presence and quick responses to requests for help. Staff said there were enough people to meet residents’ needs.
“There was a good staff presence and we saw staff responded quickly to any requests for assistance.” from the report
Medicines
Staff who gave medicines were trained and competent. Records showed the prescribed dose and administration time, and medicines were stored safely.
“People were supported to take their medicines by staff who were trained and competent to carry out the task.” from the report
Staff skills and support
Staff completed induction training, received ongoing training and were supported through supervision. The service monitored their skills and refresher training.
“There were effective systems to monitor staff skills and training to ensure they remained competent and that they received refresher training when needed.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People received food and drinks that reflected their needs and preferences. Staff monitored intake and sought medical help promptly when concerns were found.
“People were provided with food and drink which met their needs and preferences.” from the report
Management and improvement
The provider used audits to identify improvements and had a clear staffing structure. People’s views were considered and staff described good teamwork.
“The provider had a number of audits and checks in place to monitor safety and all aspects of the service provided.” from the report
Damaged shower room
needs fixingOne shower room had ripped flooring, exposed pipework and a rusted shower chair. It had been reported two months earlier but had not been prioritised; the manager agreed to stop using it until refurbishment.
“One shower room in Acorn Unit had ripped flooring, exposed pipework and a rusted shower chair.” from the report
PPE guidance
needs fixingStaff risk assessments had not been updated to reflect recent government guidance on eye protection. This was addressed during the inspection.
“The registered manager had not updated staff risk assessments to reflect recent changes in Government guidance regarding the use of eye protection.” from the report
Social distancing
minorInspectors were only somewhat assured that social-distancing rules could be followed. Dementia and mental health needs made this difficult, although staff tried to keep people apart.
“Due to some people having dementia and mental health issues, it had been difficult for staff to ensure people adhered to social distancing.” from the report
- 01Has the shower room with ripped flooring, exposed pipework and a rusted shower chair now been fully refurbished?
- 02How are staff risk assessments kept up to date when infection-control guidance changes, including guidance on eye protection?
- 03How does the home manage social distancing for people living with dementia or mental health needs?
- 04How does the home check that staffing levels remain enough to meet people’s needs at different times of day?
- 05When were Caring and Responsive last fully inspected, and what were the findings?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 June 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 Georges Park
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2021Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 June 2015.
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 Telford and Wrekin
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. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.