CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St John's Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable equipment and generally safe medicines management. They noted that some instructions for medicines taken when needed did not contain enough information for staff to use them consistently.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed, staff were trained and people were supported with food, drink and healthcare. The home used best-practice guidance and followed the Mental Capacity Act processes described in the report.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and caring, knew people well and supported their dignity, independence and choices. People could choose where to spend time and could ask for different meals.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People received person-centred care and were supported with communication, activities, family contact and end-of-life wishes. Some care plans did not contain enough information about individual needs, likes and dislikes, although staff knew how to tailor the care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager knew people and their needs, and people and staff felt able to speak with them. Audits, meetings and reviews of incidents were used to monitor and improve care.
What inspectors found, August 2019
St John's Care Home was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some care records needing more personal detail.
This was an unannounced inspection on 10 June 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a visiting healthcare professional. They observed care and checked care, medicines, staffing, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training and kind staff who knew people well.
There were some gaps in the written information. Some care plans did not fully record people's individual needs, likes and dislikes. Some instructions for medicines taken when needed did not contain enough detail. The manager had identified these issues and said improvements were being made.
The overall Good rating means inspectors found the home was providing good care and meeting the relevant requirements at the time of the visit. This rating was maintained from the previous inspection, published in September 2016.
Enough staff
Inspectors found that staffing levels were consistently above the number calculated as necessary. People said staff responded to call bells and met their needs.
“Records showed there were consistently more care staff on duty than was needed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, independence and daily choices. People and relatives described staff as kind.
“It was clear staff knew people well and had developed kind caring relationships with them.” from the report
Safe medicines systems
The main medicines processes were organised, including receiving, storing, giving and disposing of medicines. Staff supported people to take medicines in their preferred way.
“Medicines systems were organised and people were receiving their medicines when they should.” from the report
Support with health and end-of-life care
The home worked with healthcare professionals and arranged support when people needed it. People's end-of-life wishes were discussed and recorded.
“The registered manager and staff worked collaboratively with other healthcare professionals to ensure people's needs at the end of their life were identified and respected.” from the report
Active quality monitoring
The manager and provider used audits, complaints, accidents and incidents, meetings and people's views to monitor care and make improvements.
“There were effective audits in the home, this allowed the registered manager and provider to monitor the quality of care provided and to make improvements when needed.” from the report
Care plans lacked personal detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not fully record people's individual needs, likes and dislikes. The manager said staff were reviewing them and would discuss them with each person.
“However, some lacked information on people's individual need's, likes and dislikes.” from the report
Some medicines instructions were incomplete
needs fixingInstructions for some medicines taken when needed did not explain clearly enough when a person might need them or how they might show this. The manager agreed to review the instructions.
“There was not always enough information in the protocol to support staff to administer them in a consistent manner.” from the report
Upstairs area needed attention
minorInspectors found some upstairs areas needed attention. The manager said there were plans to refurbish the whole of the top floor.
“Upstairs there were some areas in need of attention.” from the report
- 01Have all care plans been updated to include each person's needs, likes and dislikes, and have people or their representatives agreed them?
- 02What changes have been made to instructions for medicines taken when needed, especially how staff recognise when a person may need them?
- 03Has the planned refurbishment of the upstairs area been completed?
- 04How are you checking that staff continue to know people's individual preferences when these are not fully recorded?
- 05How can residents and relatives raise concerns, and how are they told what action has been taken?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, with both the premises and the care provided looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 August 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.
What inspectors found, September 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but improvements were needed at meal times and with social activities.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 August 2016. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care, checked five care records and reviewed staffing, training, medicines and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff overall, safe medicines arrangements, trained staff, kind care and suitable checks on the quality of the service.
There were some areas to improve. Some people needed more support at breakfast time. Inspectors also found that some arrangements at lunch did not help people enjoy their meals, and some people wanted more opportunities for social activities. The management said it would review these points and increase early morning staffing.
Safe care
Staff knew how to respond to abuse concerns and had taken steps to reduce risks from falls, pressure damage and emergencies.
“Staff knew how to keep people safe from the risk of abuse.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely during the week before the inspection. Earlier mistakes had been investigated and action had been taken.
“We found that there were reliable arrangements for ordering, storing, administering and disposing of medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw caring interactions and found that staff protected people's privacy and dignity.
“During our inspection we saw that people were treated with respect and in a caring and kind way.” from the report
Individual support
People's care plans reflected their needs. Staff supported people who became distressed and helped them with personal care, health needs and daily routines.
“People had been consulted about the care they wanted to receive.” from the report
Open management
Managers checked the quality and safety of the service, involved people and relatives, and encouraged staff to speak up.
“There was an open and relaxed approach to running the service.” from the report
Breakfast staffing
needs fixingSome people said more staff were needed early in the morning and that they could wait for help. After the inspection, management said it had recalculated staffing and increased provision.
“I do think we need more staff on duty at breakfast time because the staff are rushing around helping people to get up.” from the report
Mealtime support
needs fixingAt lunch, people did not appear to have a meaningful choice at the point of serving. Some people also lacked equipment that would have helped them eat more easily.
“These shortfalls detracted from the meal time being a pleasant experience and increased the risk that people would not be fully supported and enabled to eat their meals.” from the report
Social activities
minorActivities were provided, but some people wanted more chances to go out and take part in activities that matched their interests.
“Although people were helped to pursue their hobbies and interests some people wanted to be offered more opportunities to enjoy social activities.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to staffing levels in the early morning after the inspection?
- 02How do people choose their meal at the time it is served, and can they choose additions such as gravy?
- 03What equipment is available to help each person eat safely and independently?
- 04How are each person's interests used to plan activities, including outings and time in the garden?
- 05How are medicines errors monitored and prevented from happening again?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall service rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 September 2016 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 John's Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 September 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.