CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Jude's House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection controls, but one face-covering risk assessment was not complete.
This was a targeted inspection on 9 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19-related staffing pressures affected care. The visit was announced 24 hours in advance.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, testing, social distancing, admissions, hygiene and infection outbreaks. The home was clean, and it had updated infection control plans and contingency plans.
Inspectors found one shortfall. One staff member could not wear the recommended face covering, and the risk had not been fully assessed at first. The provider completed the assessment and put measures in place after inspectors raised it.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full assessment of the quality of care, so there is no overall Good or Outstanding rating from this inspection.
Clean and hygienic home
Inspectors found the home clean and saw regular checks and audits to maintain hygiene standards.
“The service was kept clean and hygienic and there were regular checks and audits of the service to ensure high standards of hygiene were maintained.” from the report
Safer visiting arrangements
Visitors were asked to test for COVID-19, use protective equipment and follow hand hygiene procedures before entering.
“Visitors were asked to complete a COVID-19 test, wear appropriate [personal protective equipment] PPE and follow hand hygiene procedures before entering the service.” from the report
Pandemic planning
The home had plans to help people use their local community safely and had updated its pandemic risk assessments and contingency plans.
“The provider had developed a range of risk assessments and contingency plans to mitigate the risks associated with the pandemic.” from the report
Regular testing
People living in the home and staff were taking part in regular COVID-19 testing in line with government guidance.
“The service was taking part in regular COVID-19 testing for people and staff in line with current government guidance.” from the report
Face-covering risk assessment
needs fixingOne staff member could not wear the recommended face covering, but the risk had not initially been fully assessed. The provider completed the assessment and added measures to reduce the risk after inspectors raised it.
“One member of staff was not able to wear the recommended face covering, but this had not been fully risk assessed.” from the report
- 01What measures are now in place for the staff member who cannot wear the recommended face covering?
- 02How do you check that the face-covering risk assessment is being followed and kept up to date?
- 03What staffing pressures are you experiencing now, and how do you make sure they do not affect people's care?
- 04How are visitors currently tested, protected and supported to follow hygiene procedures?
- 05What is the home's most recent full inspection rating for areas not covered by this targeted inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not assess the other care quality questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 February 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.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind care, but the home was not always responsive or well-led.
Inspectors visited on 29 and 30 May 2019. One inspector and an expert-by-experience spoke with seven people, one relative, staff and health and social care professionals. They reviewed care records, staff records, safety records and management checks.
People told inspectors they felt safe and that staff were kind, respectful and supportive. Medicines, staffing, food safety, cleanliness, health support and risk assessments were generally managed well. The previous food safety concerns and some building safety problems had been addressed.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Caring. It was rated Requires Improvement for Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were not always consulted about restrictions and activities, some care plans were not easy to understand, and management checks had not found all these problems.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and staff understood safeguarding procedures and how to respond to risks. Risk assessments gave staff guidance about reducing risks.
“We found evidence that the service identified, assessed, and regularly reviewed risks to people and had developed strategies to mitigate these.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Staff were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines. Recent medicines records were complete, stocks were checked weekly and errors were investigated.
“We observed people being given their medicine and could see that there was a safe system in place and staff followed safe practices.” from the report
Good health support
The home worked with health professionals and helped people access GPs and other services. Care records included physical and mental health information.
“We received positive feedback from healthcare professionals about how the service supported people to access healthcare services.” from the report
Kitchen access was not properly assessed
needs fixingThe communal kitchen was locked, so people needed staff to let them in. The home had not clearly recorded the risks or considered the effect on other people before inspectors raised this.
“However, the service had not made a clear record of these risks or the rationale for keeping the kitchen locked.” from the report
Care plans were not accessible to everyone
needs fixingSome people with difficulty reading could not understand their care plans easily. The provider said it was working on an easy read summary.
“However, we identified that the individual care plans were not accessible to people with difficulty with literacy.” from the report
Activities and consultation were inconsistent
minorSome people were unhappy with the activities and said there were no trips. People also gave mixed feedback about how often they were asked for their views.
“We received comments such as "the activities are not always good", "we don't do any trips" and "I don't choose to do them.” from the report
Management checks missed problems
needs fixingThe home carried out audits, but these had not found some of the problems around consultation. Regular keywork meetings were also not recorded for everyone.
“However, some of the issues we found around consultation had not been identified by the service.” from the report
- 01How will you provide care plans in an easy read format for people who have difficulty reading?
- 02How do you assess the risks and review the impact of keeping the communal kitchen locked?
- 03What activities, trips and one-to-one opportunities are now available, and how are people's preferences recorded?
- 04How often are keywork meetings held, and can you show how each person's views are recorded?
- 05What checks now make sure that consultation problems and other shortfalls are identified and put right?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, following an earlier focused inspection in January 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 July 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 Jude's House
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 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.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 February 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 Lewisham
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.