CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Lauras
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, visiting arrangements, cleaning, ventilation and managing outbreaks. They also reviewed measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- 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, March 2022
St Lauras: inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control during a COVID-19 outbreak.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 15 February 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak, along with staffing pressures.
Inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, supported testing, followed visiting guidance, and kept areas clean and well ventilated. Staff had infection-control training, and refresher training was being arranged.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give a full quality rating or assess all five areas of care.
Outbreak learning
The registered manager carried out a root cause analysis after a recent outbreak and planned to use the learning to manage future outbreaks more effectively.
“The registered manager completed a root cause analysis following a recent outbreak in the home.” from the report
Training and PPE
Staff received infection-control training, including how to put on and remove PPE. Extra refresher training from external health professionals was being arranged.
“Staff received Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) training and how to correctly put on and take off their Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and well ventilated. Deep-cleaning schedules and checks were in place.
“Areas of the home were clean and well ventilated.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
Visitors were given information about the correct visiting process. The home supported visits in line with government guidance, including during the outbreak.
“People were enabled to receive visitors and maintained contact with people important to them.” from the report
Positive test not reported
needs fixingThere had been an incident where a positive test result was not reported to the registered manager. The matter was reported to safeguarding authorities, and lessons were shared with staff.
“There was an incident where a positive test result for a person had not been reported to the registered manager.” from the report
- 01What changes were made after the root cause analysis of the recent outbreak?
- 02How do staff now make sure positive test results are reported promptly to the registered manager?
- 03How are agency staff used across different units, and how is continuity of care protected when staff move between units?
- 04What infection-control and PPE refresher training has been completed since this inspection?
- 05What visiting process is currently used, including during any future outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the report does not assess all five areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 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, January 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, with some improvements still needed in staffing and care records.
This was the first comprehensive inspection of the home. It was unannounced and took place on 24 November and 3 December 2021. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and praised staff for being kind, respectful and responsive. Medicines, infection control, staff training and safeguarding arrangements were found to be effective.
The report also identified work still in progress. Some people and relatives wanted more staff time. Inspectors found that not all personal information was recorded in care plans, and the home was still improving falls analysis and checks of daily charts. The manager and provider had an improvement plan.
People felt safe
People and relatives said people were safe and well looked after. Staff understood safeguarding and reported concerns appropriately.
“People told us they were safe in the home. One person told us, "I do feel very safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected privacy and dignity and involved people in their care.
“Staff respected people and treated them with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and checked as competent before giving medicines independently. Audits were used to correct errors promptly.
“Staff were trained and had their competency observed before they could administer people's medicines on their own.” from the report
Strong improvement work
The manager had made significant improvements and used audits and an action plan to identify and address shortfalls.
“There were numerous improvements made by the registered manager in the few months they have been in post.” from the report
Staffing levels
needs fixingPeople and relatives said they would like more staff available to spend time with them. Inspectors said requested support was provided promptly, but staffing remained an area for improvement.
“People and relatives told us at times they felt more staff were needed, however they always received the support they requested.” from the report
Personal details in care plans
needs fixingStaff knew people's likes, dislikes and personal preferences, but inspectors could not find all this information in the written care plans.
“However, we could not find all this personalised information in people's care plans.” from the report
Monitoring still developing
minorThe home was still improving its falls analysis and monitoring of daily charts. These were identified as areas needing further work.
“These included the personalisation of care records, staffing, falls analysis and monitoring of daily charts.” from the report
Equipment delays
minorOne relative reported some delays in getting equipment ready for people who moved in for a short stay. The manager said they understood the importance of having equipment in place beforehand.
“There were some delays getting some equipment in place for people who moved in the home for a short period of time.” from the report
- 01What staffing levels are now in place, and how much time can staff spend with people who want company?
- 02How do you make sure each person's likes, dislikes and preferences are recorded in their care plan?
- 03What changes have you made to falls analysis and monitoring of daily charts?
- 04How do you make sure equipment is ready before someone moves in, including for short stays?
- 05What further support is being given to the management team to use the electronic care planning system?
This was the first comprehensive inspection and covered all five key questions; a targeted inspection on 12 March 2021 was not rated. 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 Lauras
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2022GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 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
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.