CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St James Care
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found improvements in medicines records, recruitment checks and measures to reduce smoking-related fire risks. They found enough suitable staff and systems to manage abuse, infection, accidents and other risks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's physical and mental health needs, wishes and preferences. Staff had relevant training, people received support with food and healthcare, and mental capacity safeguards were used.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion. Staff involved people in decisions and supported their dignity, independence, confidence and self-esteem.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- The home provided highly individual support for people with complex alcohol dependency needs. Inspectors found examples of major improvements in people's health, independence, confidence and involvement in the community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had clear management arrangements, audits and ways for people and staff to suggest improvements. Inspectors also found strong partnership working with health and social care services.
What inspectors found, January 2019
St James Care is rated Good overall, with Outstanding responsive care and improved safety arrangements.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 26 and 27 November 2018, and visited the provider's head office on 29 November. They spoke with eight people, staff, managers and other professionals. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, audits and other documents.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. It was rated Outstanding for Responsive. Inspectors found safe medicines arrangements, enough suitable staff, detailed care plans, kind relationships and strong links with health and social care services.
People received highly personalised support, including help to manage alcohol safely, improve their health, regain independence and achieve personal goals. Inspectors said the home had a particularly positive effect on people's dignity, confidence and wellbeing.
The home had improved its safety arrangements since the previous inspection in May 2016. The overall Good rating remained the same, while Responsive improved from Good to Outstanding.
Life-changing support
Inspectors found that personalised support helped people reduce dangerous drinking, improve their health and regain independence. Some people achieved qualifications, volunteering roles or plans to move to more independent housing.
“People with complex needs received support to achieve goals which in some cases were genuinely life changing and life saving.” from the report
Outstanding responsiveness
The home offered a specialist service for people whose needs were not met by other local services. It adapted support to people's goals, including safe alcohol management, community activities and plans for future housing.
“The provider had developed an exceptional and distinctive service for people whose individual needs were not met by other services in the area.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as respectful and supportive. Staff helped people make decisions, rebuild relationships and protect their dignity and independence.
“They go the extra mile. They treat me with respect.” from the report
Improved safety
The home had strengthened medicines records, recruitment checks and smoking risk arrangements since the previous inspection. There were also systems to learn from accidents, incidents and medicines errors.
“At this inspection the provider had taken steps to improve the quality of medicines records” from the report
Smoking arrangements
minorA designated smoking room was still available at certain times during the inspection, although there were plans to phase it out. Ask what the current arrangements are and how fire risks are managed.
“At the time of our inspection there was a designated smoking room inside the home, which was available at certain times.” from the report
Wheelchair access
minorThe home had some wheelchair adaptations, but inspectors noted that some doorways were too narrow. Ask whether the accommodation is suitable for your relative's specific mobility needs.
“Adaptations for wheelchairs such as ramps over door thresholds were in place, although these were limited by the width of some doorways.” from the report
- 01What are the current arrangements for smoking inside and outside the home, and how are fire risks assessed?
- 02How would you support my relative if they wanted to continue drinking, and how would their agreed alcohol limits be reviewed?
- 03What accessibility arrangements are available if my relative uses a wheelchair, given the report's comments about narrow doorways?
- 04How would you support my relative to achieve personal goals such as community activities, education or moving to more independent accommodation?
- 05How are medicines records, incidents and improvement actions checked and followed up now?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with visits to the home and the provider's head office; the previous inspection was in May 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 January 2019 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 James Care
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- June 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 January 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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Southampton
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 £1,350 a week. 39 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.