CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Helens Down
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine arrangements, good risk assessments and effective infection prevention measures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in detail during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in detail during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward, although inspectors recorded that people received kind and compassionate care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in detail during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had effective quality checks, visible management and positive relationships with families and health and social care professionals. A new manager was being supported during the transition.
What inspectors found, March 2023
St Helens Down was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with a management change being supported.
Two inspectors visited on 22 February 2023. They spoke with two people, five staff members and three relatives. They reviewed care, medicine and staff records, as well as management systems.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicine systems, good risk management and effective infection control. People were treated kindly and supported to make choices and stay as independent as possible.
This was a focused inspection prompted by a review of information held by the CQC. Only Safe and Well-led were inspected in detail. The other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection, when the service was also rated Good.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. Risks were assessed and managed while people were supported to keep as much choice and control as possible.
“People were kept safe from avoidable harm because staff knew them well and understood how to protect them from abuse.” from the report
Kind, person-centred care
People received kind and compassionate support. Staff knew people well, adapted support to their needs and helped them make choices about their daily lives.
“People received good quality care, support and treatment because trained staff and specialists could meet their needs and wishes.” from the report
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors saw enough staff to meet people's needs, including one-to-one support for activities and visits. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“The service had enough staff, including for one-to-one support for people to take part in activities and visits how and when they wanted.” from the report
Good links with other services
The home worked with health and social care professionals, including specialist teams, therapists and GPs. Referrals were made when people's needs changed.
“Management and staff had developed working relationships with a range of health and social care professionals.” from the report
Previous medicine count discrepancies
minorThe home had identified discrepancies in medicine counts. It changed the oversight of medicine counts and used incidents to improve practice, but families may still want to ask how this is monitored now.
“For example, changes to the oversight of medicine counts had been made following identification of discrepancies in medicines counts.” from the report
- 01How has the change from the previous registered manager to the new manager been completed, and who is responsible for the home now?
- 02What checks are currently used to make sure medicine counts remain accurate?
- 03How will you support my relative to make choices and communicate their preferences?
- 04How do you involve families when a person's needs or care plan changes?
- 05Which health and social care professionals are involved in supporting people at the home?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 March 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, March 2018
St Helens Down rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some staffing and record-keeping issues that were being managed.
This was an announced, routine comprehensive inspection. The visit took place on 7 February 2018. Inspectors observed care, spoke with five of the six people living at the home, staff, a relative and a health professional, and checked care, medicine, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, received personalised support and were treated with kindness and respect.
There were staff vacancies, covered by regular agency staff. Inspectors also found one incomplete medicine record and an unsecured garden gate. Both issues were dealt with during or around the inspection. The home had systems to monitor quality and improve the service.
Personalised support
Care plans were detailed and tailored to each person's needs, preferences, communication and daily life.
“People's care and support was well planned, with comprehensive plans in place to guide staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and supported them patiently. Inspectors saw people's privacy, dignity and choices being respected.
“Care staff were kind and respected people's choices.” from the report
Strong quality checks
The home used regular audits and safety checks. Actions were recorded and followed up to support improvement.
“There were a number of robust quality assurance systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service delivered.” from the report
Staff vacancies
needs fixingThere were vacancies for permanent staff. Regular agency workers were used to cover the shortfall, although the report says staffing levels remained safe.
“There were staff vacancies which were being covered by regular agency staff.” from the report
Incomplete medicine record
needs fixingOne person's record did not explain fully what a when-needed medicine was for or why it had been prescribed. The manager completed the record immediately after inspectors raised it.
“Medication Administration Records (MAR) were completed appropriately, with the exception of one person's MAR.” from the report
Garden gate
needs fixingGates between the decking and tiered garden were not fully secured. The manager acted immediately to make the area safe.
“However, these were not fully secured to prevent people from unnecessary risk.” from the report
Manager working excessive hours
minorThe registered manager was covering care work because of the staffing shortage and was working excessive hours. This was being monitored, with plans to reduce care hours after recruitment.
“There had been no impact on the management of the service apart from the registered manager working excessive hours each week.” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff vacancies are there now, and how often are agency staff used?
- 02How do you make sure agency staff understand each person's care plan and communication needs?
- 03How are medicine records checked, especially for medicines given when needed?
- 04Have all outstanding legal safeguards for people living at the home now been authorised?
- 05What improvements have been made to the garden and other areas identified in the service improvement plan?
This was an announced routine comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC areas; site activity ran from 2 to 14 February 2018, with the site visit on 7 February. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 March 2018 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 Helens Down
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 March 2014.
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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.