CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Margarets Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2021
St Margarets Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection controls but raised a ventilation concern.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 10 March 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than the full range of care provided.
Inspectors were assured about visitor arrangements, safe admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning and the management of possible outbreaks. Staff were also supported, and extra risk assessments were completed for staff at increased risk from COVID-19.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured about the layout and hygiene of the premises. No windows were open in communal areas where people gathered, so the registered manager said they would look at ways to improve natural ventilation. The service was inspected but not rated.
Visitor infection controls
The home scheduled visits, limited the areas visitors could enter and escorted visitors to reduce infection risks.
“Staff made sure that people were protected against the transmission of infection from visitors by scheduling visits, limiting areas that visitors could access and being available to escort visitors.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had enough masks, gloves and aprons, and helped people understand why protective equipment was needed.
“Staff had enough personal protective equipment, such as masks, gloves and aprons, and had supported people so that they also understood the need for this.” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
Regular COVID-19 testing was carried out, and inspectors were assured that outbreaks could be prevented or managed.
“Regular COVID-19 testing was carried out to make sure staff could take the correct action to protect people.” from the report
Natural ventilation
needs fixingInspectors found no windows open in communal areas where people were gathered. The manager said they would look at ways to provide ventilation while preventing people from becoming cold.
“there were no windows open to provide natural ventilation in communal areas where people were gathered.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to provide natural ventilation in communal areas while keeping people warm?
- 02How are visits currently scheduled, limited and supervised?
- 03How often are staff and residents tested, and what happens when a test result is positive?
- 04How do you maintain cleaning of frequently touched surfaces and manage infection outbreaks?
- 05How do you ensure the same staff care for the same people and provide extra staff when needed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 March 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 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, with some gaps in risk records, privacy of records and activities.
This was an unannounced inspection on 7 September 2017. The inspector and an expert-by-experience spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a visiting nurse. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records, and observed care.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines management, support with food, drink and healthcare, and care that was generally kind and respectful.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in October 2016. Inspectors still found some areas needing attention. These included incomplete risk assessments, unsecured care records, occasional lapses in respectful care, and activities that were sometimes limited.
Kind and patient care
Staff generally treated people warmly and patiently. Inspectors saw staff reassure people who were anxious and support them at their own pace.
“Our observations during this inspection showed that staff cared for people in a kind and caring way.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were stored securely and records showed they were given as prescribed. Staff had medicines training and competency checks.
“People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed and medicines were managed by staff whose competency had been assessed.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People were offered choices of meals, snacks and drinks. Staff involved outside healthcare professionals when needed and acted on their guidance.
“People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of food and fluids.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff could raise concerns and give feedback. Audits identified issues and actions were taken to improve the service.
“There was an 'open' culture within the home.” from the report
Some risks were not formally recorded
needs fixingRisks linked to people's smoking, including cigarettes and lighters, had not been documented. The manager said this would be reviewed urgently.
“However, not all risks to people had been formally assessed.” from the report
Staff belongings were not always locked away
seriousPersonal belongings could include medicines, cigarettes or lighters. Inspectors said this created an increased risk to people living in the home.
“However, we noted that staff did not always lock away their personal belongings which may include cigarettes, lighters and their own medicines.” from the report
Activities were sometimes limited
needs fixingActivities were available, but some people said there were not enough suitable activities. Inspectors said this could put people at risk of social isolation.
“Activities for people living at the service were sometimes limited.” from the report
Occasional lapses in respect
needs fixingInspectors saw two occasions when staff did not initially show the person they were supporting the utmost respect. Staff corrected themselves and the manager said staff would be reminded.
“However, we did note two incidents where staff did not initially show the person they were supporting the utmost respect.” from the report
Care records were not always secure
needs fixingSome care records could be accessed by other people or visitors. The deputy manager said they would be moved to a secure area.
“People's care records were not always held securely.” from the report
- 01How have you documented and managed the risks linked to people's smoking, cigarettes and lighters?
- 02Where are staff medicines, cigarettes and other personal belongings now stored during shifts?
- 03What activities are available for people whose interests are not met by the usual programme?
- 04What changes were made after the two incidents where staff did not initially show someone the utmost respect?
- 05How do you make sure all care records are kept securely and cannot be accessed by visitors or other residents?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five areas, with the overall rating and each individual rating assessed during the visit; the home had previously been rated Requires Improvement in October 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 October 2017 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 Margarets Care Home
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 March 2015.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Peterborough
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 £1,370 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I honestly feel lucky to have found her and have already booked her for another visit.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.