CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Marks
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable training, safe medicines systems and appropriate infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Inspectors did observe staff supporting people with kindness and care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Inspectors found that people had opportunities to choose activities and attend outings.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management systems had not identified weaknesses in care plans, daily records and fire drill records. Inspectors also found that some meeting minutes and survey follow-up arrangements needed improvement.
What inspectors found, August 2023
St Marks was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind support, but leadership and records required improvement.
The inspection took place on 27 June, 6 July and 7 July 2023. Inspectors observed staff and residents, spoke with managers, staff, relatives and health and social care professionals, and checked care plans, medicines, training, recruitment, safety and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable training, safe medicines practice and appropriate safeguarding. People appeared relaxed with staff, and relatives said they felt their loved ones were safe.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Care plans and daily records did not always give enough detail, and fire drill records did not show that drills had been evaluated. The home sent inspectors an amended night-time fire evacuation plan after the inspection.
The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection published in July 2017. This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led. The other three question ratings were not inspected and were carried forward from the previous inspection.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Those who could not say this appeared relaxed and content around staff.
“People told us they felt safe living at St Marks, and we observed through their interactions with staff that they were relaxed in their company.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were checked regularly and staff were trained and assessed before giving them.
“Medicines were managed safely. Medicine checks were carried out by a senior on a weekly basis and the manager also carried out a monthly audit.” from the report
Choice and activities
People were supported to choose activities and take part in community outings, holidays and days out.
“People were supported to participate in activities of their choice. People told us they enjoyed what they did and had regular opportunities to attend activities such as swimming, clubs, pubs, shopping, and restaurants.” from the report
Kind staff interactions
Inspectors saw staff treating people kindly. They also saw enjoyable and friendly interactions between staff and residents.
“We observed staff supporting people with kindness and care. There was a friendly banter between people and staff, and we also saw through people's facial expressions that they were enjoying these interactions.” from the report
Care plans needed more detail
needs fixingSome care plans were not fully up to date or clear enough about how support should be provided. One example did not explain how a person wanted to be shaved.
“The home's quality assurance system had not identified that care plans needed further review to ensure that they were up to date and accurately described the way support should be provided.” from the report
Daily records did not show enough
needs fixingDaily notes often repeated what people had done but did not clearly record their choices, enjoyment or progress towards goals.
“Daily records were not detailed and were repetitive. Records stated what people had done, but did not demonstrate that people had made choices, that they enjoyed what they had been doing, and that progress with goals was recorded.” from the report
Fire drill records
needs fixingFire drill records did not show that drills had been evaluated, and the night-time evacuation policy gave limited guidance. The home sent an amended plan after the inspection.
“The quality assurance system had not identified that records of fire drills did not demonstrate that drills had been evaluated.” from the report
Management records and feedback
minorSome staff meeting minutes used wording that could be seen as disrespectful. There was also no formal record of actions taken in response to relatives' survey feedback.
“However, minutes of meetings read like a list of instructions, they were not written in a person-centred way and the wording used on occasions could be perceived as being disrespectful.” from the report
- 01How have you updated care plans so they clearly describe each person's preferences and the support they need?
- 02How do daily records now show people's choices, enjoyment and progress towards their goals?
- 03How are fire drills evaluated and recorded, including drills at night?
- 04What changes have been made to the night-time fire evacuation plan?
- 05How do you record and follow up concerns raised by relatives?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 August 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, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and support for people during the pandemic.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 26 February 2021. It looked at how the home prevented and controlled coronavirus infections. The home supports up to seven people with learning disabilities, and six people were living there at the time.
Inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, followed social distancing rules, arranged regular testing and kept cleaning records. Visitors had temperature checks and were asked to take a lateral flow test before entering.
The home also had individual risk assessments and hospital packs with information about people's communication, autism and how they showed pain or distress. People were supported to keep in touch with family and continue activities during lockdown.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a standard overall quality rating. It only records what inspectors found about infection prevention and control during this targeted visit.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment safely and had suitable arrangements to prevent and manage infections.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Visitor safety
Essential visitors had temperature checks, used protective equipment and were asked to take a lateral flow test before entering.
“All essential visitors had their temperature taken on arrival and they were asked to carry out a Lateral Flow Device (LFD) Covid -19 test before they could enter the home.” from the report
Personalised hospital information
Hospital packs contained information about each person's needs, communication and how they experienced pain or distress.
“These items provided information for hospital staff in relation to each person's individual needs, how they cope with pain/distress, how they communicated and how their autism affects them.” from the report
Support during lockdown
The home adapted activities and used technology to help people maintain routines, interests and contact with family.
“All of this had helped to maintain people's wellbeing throughout a very difficult time.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently checked and tested before entering the home?
- 02How often are people and staff tested now, and what happens if someone tests positive?
- 03How are each person's communication needs recorded and shared with hospital staff?
- 04How do you support people to keep in touch with family and take part in activities?
- 05When was the home's infection prevention and control policy last reviewed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not provide ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 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.
Every inspection of St Marks
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 May 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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East 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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.