CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Ives Close
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from harm, risks were assessed and managed, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely at the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and understood people's needs. People were supported with decisions, food, drink and access to health care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were patient and kind, respected privacy and dignity, and supported people to communicate choices and remain independent. This improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personal and included people's histories, interests and communication needs. People and families were involved in care planning, activities were tailored to individuals, and complaints were dealt with.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive culture, supportive management and systems for checking quality. Feedback and audits were used to identify and make improvements.
What inspectors found, December 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with previous concerns about dignity improved.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 October 2017. Inspectors also spoke to relatives by telephone on 1 November. They observed care, spoke with staff and managers, checked care plans and staff records, and reviewed quality checks.
Eight people with learning disabilities were living at the home, which can support up to nine people. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable risk assessments and staff who understood people's needs.
People were treated kindly and with dignity. They were supported to make choices, stay independent, keep in touch with important people and take part in activities they enjoyed. Families helped plan and review care.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous overall rating was also Good, but Caring had then required improvement. Inspectors said the necessary improvements had been made.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Recruitment checks were also completed.
“The provider ensured there were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Kind and dignified care
Staff knew people well, communicated with them during care and supported them at their own pace. Privacy and dignity were respected.
“People were treated in a dignified manner, by staff who knew them well and understood how to communicate with them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included personal information, interests and communication methods. Staff supported people to choose activities and stay involved in daily life.
“We saw these contained information about people's histories, interests, and how staff could communicate effectively with them.” from the report
Good management
The manager used audits, feedback and staff discussions to monitor care and make improvements. Staff said they felt supported.
“The registered manager had effective systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality of care people received.” from the report
Previous medicines recording errors
minorAn audit had found some medicines recording errors. The policy and process were changed, and inspectors found no further mistakes, but families may want to ask how this remains monitored.
“An audit of the medicines had highlighted that some recording errors had been made.” from the report
- 01How will you communicate with my relative if they cannot communicate verbally?
- 02How will you support my relative to make choices and remain independent?
- 03How are medicines checked and recorded now, following the recording errors identified in the audit?
- 04How often will my relative's care plan be reviewed, and how can our family take part?
- 05What activities and community visits could be arranged around my relative's interests?
This inspection looked at the home, the care provided and all five CQC key questions; inspectors also spoke with three relatives by telephone. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 December 2017 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 Ives Close
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2017Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 March 2011.
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 Staffordshire
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 £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.