CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Joseph's Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about visitor controls, social distancing, admissions, testing, outbreak management and the infection control policy. They were only somewhat assured about the safe use of protective equipment and the hygiene practices of the premises.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, January 2021
St Joseph's Care Home was inspected but not rated; infection controls were mostly in place, but waste disposal and cleaning arrangements needed improvement.
The unannounced inspection took place on 16 December 2020. It was a targeted inspection during the coronavirus outbreak, focused on infection prevention and control.
Inspectors found strong arrangements for visitors, including health screening, handwashing, alcohol gel and personal protective equipment. Staff had areas for putting on and removing protective equipment, and regular COVID-19 testing was in place.
There were some shortfalls. Two disposal bins were overfilled, guidance for staff laundering their own uniforms was unclear, and cleaning schedules did not include all the extra COVID-19 cleaning tasks. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Visitor infection controls
Visitors were screened, had their temperatures checked and were required to use protective equipment. Handwashing facilities and alcohol gel were available.
“Visitors were health screened and had their temperatures checked by on arrival.” from the report
Staff protective equipment
The home had designated areas and stations for putting on and removing protective equipment. Inspectors saw staff following the guidance.
“Staff were seen to be adhering to the PPE guidance and protective measures in place.” from the report
Regular testing
Staff and people living at the home were included in the routine COVID-19 testing scheme.
“The service was engaged in the routine testing scheme, with all staff and people living at the service being tested for COVID-19 on a regular basis.” from the report
Policies and guidance
The provider had put policies, procedures and guidance in place for infection prevention and control.
“The provider had developed a robust package of policies, procedures and guidance which had been implemented at the service.” from the report
Overfilled waste bins
seriousTwo bins were filled beyond their capacity. Inspectors said this created an infection risk because potentially infectious waste was exposed to the air.
“Staff were wearing PPE in accordance with guidance, however we saw that in two areas, disposal bins were filled beyond their capacity.” from the report
Uniform washing guidance
needs fixingStaff washed their own uniforms, but it was unclear whether they had been given effective instructions for doing this safely.
“In addition, staff were laundering their own uniforms and it was not clear they were being provided with guidance and instruction on how this should be completed effectively.” from the report
Cleaning schedules
needs fixingThe cleaning schedules were not detailed enough for the extra requirements during the pandemic. They did not include tasks such as regularly disinfecting frequently touched areas.
“Additional instructions that needed to be followed due to the COVID-19 pandemic had not been included.” from the report
- 01How were the two overfilled disposal bins dealt with, and how do you now check that waste is removed before bins become full?
- 02What written instructions do staff have for laundering their own uniforms safely?
- 03Have the cleaning schedules been updated to include frequent disinfection of high-traffic touch points?
- 04How do you check that staff continue to follow the personal protective equipment guidance?
- 05What infection control checks have been carried out since this inspection?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus outbreak; the service was inspected but not rated and the report did not assess the other quality areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 January 2021 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, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some areas still being improved.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 26 September and 2 October 2019. Two inspectors and an expert by experience visited the home. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care and checked care, medicines and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from avoidable harm, received their medicines safely and had enough staff to support them.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff knew people's preferences and supported choice, independence, activities and relationships. The home was clean and homely, and managers worked with health and social care professionals.
The report also identified some improvements in progress. These included making mental capacity assessments more detailed, making care records more person-centred, and making meetings more useful for people's views. The home was rated Good at the previous inspection in January 2017 and stayed Good.
Safe care
Inspectors found that risks were identified and managed. Staff knew how to respond to emergencies, and people received their medicines safely.
“People were protected from avoidable harm and abuse by staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as kind, caring and respectful. Staff supported people to remain independent and involved in decisions about their care.
“People we spoke with were positive about the staff and care they received.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and preferred routines. Care was adapted to people's communication needs and choices.
“People experienced personalised support that was well structured and planned based on their unique personality and needs.” from the report
Good links and activities
People were supported to maintain relationships and choose activities. The home had links with local groups, including a weekly session with children from a nursery.
“People had regular visits from outside entertainers, pet therapy, day trips, visits to local schools and organisations.” from the report
Meal choices were taken early
minorPeople were asked to choose their lunch before it was cooked. Inspectors said this may not work well for people with memory or thinking difficulties, and the manager said it would be reviewed.
“However, people were asked for their choice before lunch was cooked, which for people who had difficulties with memory or cognition is not considered best practise.” from the report
Some assessments needed more detail
needs fixingThe manager had found that some mental capacity assessments lacked detail. Higher-level training was being organised to improve them.
“This was because they had found some assessments lacked detail when completed.” from the report
Residents' meetings were not always open enough
minorSome people felt meetings mainly told them what was happening rather than listening to their views. The manager planned to change how information and feedback were handled.
“However, some people felt the meetings were a list of instructions.” from the report
Staff morale was variable
minorStaff reported variable morale linked to staff changes and recruitment. Inspectors said this had not affected the quality of care, and managers planned to discuss it in team meetings.
“Staff told us morale in the service was variable.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the way residents choose meals, especially for people living with dementia?
- 02How are mental capacity and best interest assessments checked for detail and accuracy?
- 03How do residents' meetings now give people a real chance to contribute and raise concerns?
- 04What has been done to improve staff morale and manage changes in the staff team?
- 05How are care records being made more person-centred, and how will families be involved in reviewing them?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the home's premises; all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 October 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 Joseph's Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 December 2010.
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 Hertfordshire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“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.