CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at St Magnus Hospital and St Magnus Nursing
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, enough staff, safe medicines systems and good infection prevention, although some governance reports did not clearly record trends and actions.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and risks were assessed, and care plans guided staff well. Staff were trained and supported, nutrition and hydration needs were met, healthcare was available and people's choices were respected under the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People and their representatives were involved in care decisions, and staff supported people in a calm and reassuring way.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was tailored to people's histories, preferences, communication needs and distress triggers. People could see relatives, take part in activities and raise complaints or suggestions.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were visible and approachable, with regular audits, risk reviews and staff meetings. The provider had made changes to handovers, care records, staffing arrangements and the environment to improve care.
What inspectors found, January 2024
St Magnus Hospital and St Magnus Nursing was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a minor weakness in how some quality reports recorded learning.
This was an unannounced inspection of the nursing service, covering Rosemary Park nursing and the Courtyard unit. Inspectors visited on 9 November 2023 and also reviewed records and information up to 12 December 2023. They spoke with one person, relatives and representatives, staff and visiting professionals, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment checks and management records.
The nursing service was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines support, personalised care plans and good infection control. People were treated with kindness and respect, supported to make choices, helped to access healthcare and offered activities and contact with relatives.
The inspection followed concerns about safeguarding, staffing and personal care. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from those concerns. They noted that quality reports did not always clearly show trends, themes and actions, although managers had taken action and staff received relevant learning.
Personalised risk support
Staff understood people's physical, mental health and behavioural needs. Care plans gave clear guidance about risks, positive risk-taking and how to respond when someone became distressed.
“People's care plans were comprehensive and tailored to individual needs and risks.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Relatives and representatives described staff as caring. Inspectors observed staff protecting people's dignity, explaining care and responding calmly when people were distressed.
“Staff treated people with dignity, respect and kindness.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough suitably skilled staff, with staffing levels reviewed against people's needs. New staff were recruited with the required checks, and existing staff received training and support.
“There were enough trained and skilled staff to support people.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could see relatives and take part in activities suited to their interests and needs. These included exercise, outings, arts and crafts, pet therapy, reminiscence and individual support.
“There was dedicated staff in the service who supported people to engage in a variety of activities.” from the report
Quality reports lacked detail
minorSome reports shared with senior managers did not clearly identify trends, themes or the specific actions taken. The provider said it was reviewing its guidance, and inspectors saw evidence that required actions were still shared with staff and put into practice.
“The governance reports shared with senior management did not always clearly specify trends and themes” from the report
- 01How will you improve the way incidents, trends and lessons are recorded in governance reports?
- 02How will you assess and support my relative's individual risks, including falls, choking, skin breakdown or distress?
- 03How many staff will normally be available in the unit, and how do you increase staffing when the unit is full or needs change?
- 04How will my relative be involved in care reviews and decisions if they cannot make a specific decision themselves?
- 05What activities and support for family contact would be suitable for my relative's interests and communication needs?
This began as a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led after concerns were received, then Effective, Caring and Responsive were also inspected; the hospital part of the service was not inspected and its Outstanding rating remains unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 January 2024 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, March 2020
St Magnus Hospital & Rosemary Park Nursing Home was rated Outstanding overall; inspectors found compassionate, personalised care but some record, medicine and staffing issues.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 26 November 2019. Inspectors visited all seven hospital wards and all three nursing home units. They spoke with patients, relatives, staff, managers and other professionals. They also reviewed care records, medicines and service documents.
The overall rating was Outstanding. Safe, responsive and well-led were rated Good. Effective and caring were rated Outstanding. Inspectors found personalised care, strong support for physical and mental health, kind staff, good activities and food, and effective leadership.
There were some shortfalls. Some staff worked long hours without regular days off. There was no formal handover period in the shift pattern. Some junior support workers could not access electronic care records. Inspectors also found a small number of medicine doses that had not been signed for, some window restrictors missing from a safety audit and some out-of-date clinic equipment.
Personalised care
Inspectors found care plans that covered mental health, physical health, nutrition, hydration and wellbeing. Patients and their carers were involved in developing them.
“All care plans were personalised, holistic and recovery focused.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed consistently caring and respectful interactions. Feedback from patients, relatives and other organisations was strongly positive.
“All staff across the service were observed to be exceptionally and consistently caring and respectful to all patients.” from the report
Activities and food
The service offered psychological therapies, group and individual activities, and support for healthier living. Inspectors found food choices were good and could meet individual dietary needs.
“The food was of an excellent quality and patients could make hot drinks and snacks at any time.” from the report
Electronic care records
needs fixingJunior support workers at St Magnus could not access the electronic patient record directly. Staff had to rely on paper records or ask another staff member to log in, creating a risk of confusion between records.
“This meant there was a paper copy of care plans and an electronic copy which required updating every time a care plan was reviewed” from the report
Missed medicine signatures
needs fixingInspectors found a small number of medicine doses that had not been signed as given. The report does not say that people were harmed, but the records did not clearly show that these doses had been administered.
“We found a small number of missed medicine doses that staff had not signed as being given.” from the report
Long working hours
needs fixingSome staff on the secure wards worked excessive hours without regular days off. Managers said new staff joining through induction should reduce this problem.
“However, we saw that some staff were working long hours and did not have regular days off.” from the report
Handover arrangements
needs fixingThere was no handover period built into the shift pattern. Staff came in early or stayed late to share information, although they were told they would be paid for this time.
“However, there was no handover period built into the hospitals shift pattern.” from the report
Safety checks and equipment
needs fixingBedroom window restrictors were not included in the ligature point audit, and a small amount of clinic equipment was out of date.
“The patient bedroom window restrictors were not included in the ligature point audit” from the report
- 01How can all staff who provide care access the current electronic care records?
- 02What checks are now in place to make sure every medicine dose is recorded correctly?
- 03How are staff working hours monitored, and has the problem of excessive hours been resolved?
- 04Have bedroom window restrictors been added to the ligature point audits?
- 05How does the service check that clinic equipment is in date and safe to use?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the seven wards at St Magnus Hospital and all three units at Rosemary Park Nursing Home. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 March 2020 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
Every inspection of St Magnus Hospital and St Magnus Nursing
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingdown from OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at St Magnus Hospital and St Magnus Nursing →
- March 2020Outstandingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at St Magnus Hospital and St Magnus Nursing →
- March 2019Requires improvementdown from OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2018Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016
Location report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 September 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,020 to £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.