CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Judes Residential Care Home Ltd
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Medicines, staffing, recruitment, safeguarding and infection control were managed safely. Some safety checks on premises and equipment had not been recorded.
- Effective?
- Outstanding
- People were supported to achieve personal, health and career goals, with staff using skilled and innovative support. Staff training, supervision and partnership working were strong.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well and involved them in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and regularly reviewed. People were supported to communicate, pursue their interests, maintain relationships and raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider and manager used checks, feedback and audits to monitor the service. Inspectors found an open, inclusive culture focused on people's goals.
What inspectors found, June 2023
St Judes Residential Care Home Ltd is rated Good overall; inspectors found outstanding effectiveness and kind, personalised care, but some safety checks were not recorded.
This was an unannounced inspection carried out over several dates. The inspector spoke with five people, two relatives and nine staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home supported 15 people with mental health conditions. Inspectors found medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed, staffing was safe and people were protected from abuse. Some premises and equipment checks had not been recorded, although the provider said this would be put right.
Inspectors rated the home Good overall. Safe, caring, responsive and well-led were rated Good. Effective was rated Outstanding because people achieved consistently excellent outcomes and staff worked well with other professionals.
Excellent outcomes
People were helped to achieve important personal, health and career goals. Inspectors found these outcomes were consistently better than expected.
“People were empowered to achieve consistently excellent and transformative outcomes.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received regular training, supervision and support. Their knowledge and partnership working helped people achieve better health and wellbeing.
“Staff received regular and relevant training to equip them with the knowledge and skills needed in their roles.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said they were happy and staff treated them as individuals. Inspectors saw kind and caring interactions during the visit.
“Throughout the inspection we saw numerous examples of kind and caring support being delivered.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions, supported to take positive risks and encouraged to do as much as possible for themselves.
“People were supported to maintain and develop their independence.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences, and staff communicated well with one another about the support required.
“People received personalised care based on their needs and preferences.” from the report
Safety records
minorSome checks on the premises and equipment had been completed but not recorded. The provider told inspectors that all checks would be recorded in future.
“In some instances, we saw these checks had not been recorded.” from the report
- 01How have you made sure all premises and equipment safety checks are now recorded?
- 02How do you monitor that medicines training and competency checks remain up to date?
- 03How would you support my relative to work towards their own personal, health or career goals?
- 04How are people involved in reviewing and changing their care plans?
- 05How can relatives give feedback or raise a complaint, and how will we be told what action was taken?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including the premises and care provided; inspectors visited on 21 and 25 April, with inspection activity continuing until 9 May 2023. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 June 2023 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, January 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and medicines checks needing improvement.
Inspectors visited on 10 October 2017 without warning and returned on 24 October 2017 with notice. They spoke with 10 people, staff and professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and records about how the home was run.
The home supported up to 14 people with mental health conditions, and all 14 places were in use. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, medicines were generally managed safely and there were enough staff.
People were involved in their care planning and choices. Inspectors found kind and respectful relationships, support with health care, personalised routines and access to activities. The home had a complaints process and regular checks on quality and safety.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous inspection in July 2015. Inspectors made recommendations about yearly medicines competency checks, recruitment records and the detail in quality audits.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and that staff were available when needed. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse.
“People who used the service told us they felt the service was safe.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors observed friendly, respectful and caring interactions. Staff knew people's histories, interests and preferred ways of being supported.
“We observed a mutual respect between staff and people who used the service.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included detailed information about people's routines, preferences and life histories. People were involved in decisions about their care.
“People had 'a day in the life of' document which was a very detailed account of the their daily routine” from the report
Choice and activities
People could choose meals, use the kitchen for snacks and drinks, go out and take part in activities they enjoyed.
“People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed.” from the report
Good staff support
Staff received induction, training, supervision and annual appraisals. Staff said they felt supported by the manager.
“Records we looked at showed care staff had received the training they needed to meet the needs of the people using the service.” from the report
Medicines competency checks
needs fixingStaff had their medicines competency checked when they started, but not through an annual review. Inspectors made a recommendation to address this.
“Staff had only had their competency assessed when they first started to administer medicines.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingOne staff file had references dated after the person started work, and gaps in employment had not been recorded as explored.
“References were dated after the person had started work and there were some in gaps in employment.” from the report
Quality audit detail
minorInspectors found that audits did not always describe the checks clearly and were more of a tick-box exercise. The manager later sent more detailed audits they intended to use.
“We did note that audits were more of a tick box and did not describe the actual checks to be made” from the report
- 01How do you now complete and record yearly checks of staff knowledge, skills and competency in managing and giving medicines?
- 02How do you make sure references and gaps in employment are checked and recorded before staff start work?
- 03What do your current quality audits check, and how do you record and follow up any problems found?
- 04How are residents involved in reviewing their care plans and choosing activities, meals and daily routines?
- 05What has changed at the home since the 2017 inspection?
This was an inspection of the overall service, covering Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led; all five ratings were given as Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 January 2018 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 Judes Residential Care Home Ltd
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at St Judes Residential Care Home Ltd →
- January 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at St Judes Residential Care Home Ltd →
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 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.
- March 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 March 2012.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Middlesbrough
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 £1,230 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.