CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St James House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that medicines, infection control, recruitment, staffing and risk assessments were managed safely. They also found the premises were clean and safety checks were up to date.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its rating came from the previous comprehensive inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its rating came from the previous comprehensive inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its rating came from the previous comprehensive inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective audits, clear systems and positive leadership. People, relatives and staff said communication and support were good.
What inspectors found, October 2020
St James House was rated Good; inspectors found safe care and strong management, with improvements made since the last inspection.
This was an announced focused inspection on 28 September 2020. Inspectors checked whether earlier problems with medicines, infection control and quality checks had been fixed. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and service audits.
The home was calm and clean. Inspectors found medicines, recruitment, infection control and risk management were handled safely. People were supported to make choices, stay active and build independence. Staff, people and relatives spoke positively about the home.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. The overall rating changed from Requires Improvement to Good because the earlier legal breaches had been put right. The inspection did not assess Caring, Effective or Responsive, so those ratings came from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Medicines were managed safely
Earlier recording problems had been addressed. Records showed that people received their medicines in the right way.
“Records showed that people received their medicines in the right way.” from the report
Good safety systems
Care plans and risk assessments gave clear guidance. Staffing levels were reviewed and inspectors saw that people's needs were attended to promptly.
“Care plans and risk assessments provided clear guidance on how to manage and reduce identified risks.” from the report
Positive leadership
The home had comprehensive audits and acted on issues found. Staff, people and relatives were positive about how it was managed.
“Effective and comprehensive auditing was in place to ensure the service was always improving.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were encouraged to have active lives, access the community and develop new skills. Activities continued in the gardens during the pandemic.
“The service focused on maximising people's independence whilst keeping them safe.” from the report
Larger than recommended
minorThe home was larger than recommended by best practice guidance. Inspectors said its size was not having a negative impact on people at the time of the inspection.
“The service is larger than recommended by best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01What are the current ratings for Caring, Effective and Responsive, which were not assessed in this inspection?
- 02How do you make sure the home's larger size does not affect people's individual care or independence?
- 03How are medicines records checked now to make sure the improvements are maintained?
- 04How do you monitor infection prevention and control and respond to any new concerns?
- 05How do people and relatives contribute feedback through meetings, surveys and one-to-one sessions?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; Caring, Effective and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 October 2020 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, September 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control practice during the coronavirus pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 11 August 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control as part of a coronavirus thematic review.
Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections from spreading. This included visitor controls, shielding and social distancing, use of protective equipment, testing, hygiene, the layout of the building and outbreak planning.
People who needed to self-isolate could use the garden and a lounge set aside for them. People also had planned access to the sensory room, with time between sessions for cleaning.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall judgement on the quality of care or ratings for the other areas.
Support during self-isolation
People who needed to self-isolate could still use the garden and a lounge set aside for them. This supported their wellbeing and independence.
“People who had been advised to self-isolate were supported by staff to safely access the garden and a lounge area of the home was specifically allocated to them.” from the report
Cleaning sensory equipment
People had planned time in the sensory room, with cleaning time between sessions.
“People could have allocated time slots in the sensory room. There was time between slots for cleaning of the equipment.” from the report
Clear testing information
People were helped to understand testing through videos, easy-read guidance and seeing someone tested. This helped them make an informed decision.
“People were shown videos of the testing process and given guidance in an easy read format.” from the report
Infection control arrangements
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering visitors, social distancing, protective equipment, testing, hygiene and outbreak management.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently prevented from catching or spreading infections?
- 02How do you support people who need to self-isolate to use outdoor or shared areas?
- 03How is the sensory room cleaned between people's allocated time slots?
- 04How do you explain testing to people who use the home, including people who need easy-read information?
- 05How do you currently manage protective equipment, testing and any infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; it was not a full inspection and no ratings were awarded. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 September 2020 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 House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2020Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Manchester
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. 89 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.