CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St. Helens House
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 unsafe aspects of the building, fire arrangements and risk management. Recruitment checks were also not consistently completed, although staffing levels met people's needs and medicines were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- People did not always have complete assessments or effective care outcomes. The home was not following the Mental Capacity Act properly, and some staff lacked relevant training.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. They understood people's communication, preferences and routines, and supported contact with family and friends.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Records did not show that choices and activities were consistently offered or planned. Staff also did not have the communication tools described in some care plans.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management systems did not reliably identify risks or check the quality of care. Records, training information, supervision records and complaint learning were incomplete.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care but serious gaps in safety, legal consent, care planning and management.
This was the first inspection since the service registered. Inspectors visited on 10 August, 13 September and 28 September 2022. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and the manager, and checked care plans, training, staff files and building records.
The home was rated Good for caring. Staff knew people well, treated them with kindness and respected their routines, communication needs, privacy and family relationships. People were supported with medicines, food and some health care.
The other four areas were rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found risks in the building and equipment, incomplete assessments, gaps in staff training, poor recording of activities and choices, and restrictions on people's movement without the required assessments and authorisations.
The overall rating Requires Improvement means the service was not consistently safe, effective, responsive or well-led at the time of the inspection. The provider was told to send CQC a report explaining what it would do, and CQC said it would check that action was taken.
Kind and respectful staff
Staff created a warm atmosphere and treated people with patience, dignity and respect. They understood individual communication methods and routines.
“Staff created a warm and inclusive atmosphere.” from the report
Good knowledge of people
Staff knew people well and could recognise changes in their behaviour or mood. They supported people to maintain relationships and develop everyday skills.
“Staff knew people and could recognise changes in their behaviour and support them.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Inspectors found that medicines were administered, stored and recorded using safe systems. There were also plans for when a person declined medicines.
“People were supported by staff who followed systems and processes to administer, record and store medicines safely.” from the report
Support with food and health
People were involved in choosing food and planning meals. Staff worked with a speech and language therapist to support people who had difficulty swallowing.
“People with complex needs received support to eat and drink in a way that met their personal preferences as far as possible.” from the report
Building and fire safety
seriousInspectors found risks including steep stairs, inaccessible windows, unsuitable fire arrangements and parts of the building that were difficult for people with physical disabilities to use.
“The fire detection and alarm equipment were not sufficient for the building or its use.” from the report
Restrictions without legal safeguards
seriousSome people were restricted from going out freely, did not have keys or faced a 10pm curfew. The required mental capacity assessments and legal authorisations were not in place.
“We found staff had not undertaken Mental Capacity Assessments necessary to determine whether an individual was able to make specific decisions about their welfare or choices.” from the report
Incomplete care planning
needs fixingCare plans did not consistently record people's medical, emotional, communication and functional needs. They also did not always explain how staff should support people when distressed.
“Staff did not ensure a comprehensive assessment of each person's social, physical and emotional needs on admission or soon after.” from the report
Too few planned activities
needs fixingInspectors found that staff did not consistently identify people's interests or plan and record a range of activities. A relative said people were not taken out.
“Staff did not spend time with people to identify their interests and preferences.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits did not identify important risks, and records of care, training, supervision and complaints were incomplete. This meant managers could not reliably monitor and improve the service.
“Systems or processes were not established and operating effectively to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to the fire alarm, fire notice and window locks since the inspection?
- 02How do you now assess a person's mental capacity before restricting their movement or choices?
- 03Do residents have keys and are there any curfews or limits on going out? If so, what legal authorisation supports them?
- 04How do you record each person's interests, choices and planned activities?
- 05How do you check that care plans, staff training, supervision and complaints records are complete and up to date?
This was the first inspection and covered the care home, personal care in three supported living settings and the registered personal care service; no domiciliary care was being provided at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 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. Helens House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- November 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 June 2019.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.