CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St. John's Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, medicines, fire safety and infection control were managed, although full employment histories had not always been obtained before the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care was delivered by trained staff. Staff worked with health professionals and supported people's nutrition, healthcare and legal rights.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with dignity and respect, involved them in decisions and supported their independence. People and relatives spoke positively about the staff team.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's histories, preferences and needs, and were updated when needs changed. The home supported communication, activities, relationships, complaints and end-of-life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found open management, good teamwork and effective quality checks. People, relatives and staff were involved in discussing the service and suggesting improvements.
What inspectors found, January 2022
St. John's Home was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a few minor issues addressed or noted.
This was the home's first inspection since it was registered under its current provider. It was unannounced and took place on 14 December 2021. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, a relative, staff and the manager, observed care, and checked records and infection control.
Inspectors rated all five areas Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. They found risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, staff were trained, and people received care that reflected their needs and choices.
People and relatives described staff as kind and trustworthy. Care plans were personalised, people were involved in decisions, activities were available, and the home worked with health and social care professionals. Inspectors also found effective checks and management systems to monitor quality.
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found that risks were reviewed and medicines were ordered, stored and given safely. They found no gaps or omissions in the medicines records they checked.
“We checked medicine administration records (MARs) and saw there were no gaps or omissions.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke highly of staff. Inspectors saw staff respond promptly to distress and respect people's privacy, dignity and choices.
“Staff treated people with dignity and respect and maintained their privacy.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's backgrounds, likes, dislikes, health needs and preferred support. People and relatives were involved in reviews and decisions about care.
“People's care plans were person-centred and gave staff information in areas such as people's background history, likes and dislikes, healthcare needs, care outcomes, and how they would like to be supported.” from the report
Good teamwork and oversight
The manager promoted an open culture and staff worked together. Regular audits, meetings and surveys were used to monitor quality and support improvements.
“The provider had quality assurance systems in place which were used effectively to monitor key aspects of the service.” from the report
Employment histories
minorInspectors found that full employment histories had not always been obtained for staff. The manager provided updated histories after the inspection, so this issue had been addressed by the time the report was completed.
“However, during our inspection we noted that the provider had not always obtained full employment histories of people working at the service.” from the report
Mixed views about staffing
minorSome staff and one healthcare professional thought staffing levels could be improved. Most people, relatives and staff had no concerns, and inspectors saw enough staff during the visit.
“We received mixed opinions on staffing levels.” from the report
IT for family contact
minorSome feedback suggested that IT equipment could be improved to help people communicate with relatives. The report does not say that this was a safety issue.
“IT equipment needed to be available in order facilitate more communication between people and their relatives.” from the report
- 01What staffing levels will be in place for each shift, and how do you respond if staff or healthcare professionals feel more staff are needed?
- 02How do you check that every new staff member has a complete employment history before starting?
- 03What IT equipment is available for residents to contact their relatives, and are there plans to improve it?
- 04How will you involve my relative and our family in care plan reviews and decisions if their needs change?
- 05How do you support people with communication needs, including people who do not speak English?
This was the first comprehensive inspection of the newly registered service, covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control measures. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 January 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. John's Home
2 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 November 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Oxfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.