Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a nursing home

What the CQC found at St Martha's

Goodpublished 26 September 2025, 12 months ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, March 2020

Rated Good overall, but Safe requires improvement because patients could not freely access drinking water.

This was the home’s first inspection since it registered. Inspectors visited on 14 and 15 January 2020. They spoke with patients, relatives, managers and staff, observed care and meetings, and checked care records, Mental Health Act files, medicines charts and other documents.

Inspectors found kind and respectful care. Care plans were personal and regularly reviewed. Staff provided suitable treatments, worked well with specialist teams and supported patients and relatives to be involved in care. The environment was clean and staffing levels were safe.

The main problem was that drinking water was locked away in a kitchenette. Patients had to ask staff for a drink. This restriction was not assessed for each patient or recorded for regular review. The home was required to take action under Regulation 13.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful care

    Inspectors saw staff speaking calmly and sympathetically with patients, including when patients were agitated. Relatives said their loved ones were listened to and included.

    “Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity.” from the report
  • Personalised care planning

    Staff assessed patients’ needs and created holistic, recovery-focused care plans. These were reviewed and updated when needs changed.

    “Care plans reflected patients’ assessed needs, and were personalised, holistic and recovery-oriented.” from the report
  • Safe staffing and risk management

    The home had enough nursing, support and medical staff. Staff assessed risks, shared information and used de-escalation before restraint.

    “The service had enough nursing, support and medical staff, who knew the patients and received basic training to keep people safe from avoidable harm.” from the report
  • Good teamwork and specialist support

    Different professional groups worked together and the home had access to specialists such as physiotherapists, speech and language therapists and occupational therapists.

    “Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team to benefit patients.” from the report
  • Family involvement

    Staff involved relatives in care planning and listened to their knowledge about patients’ needs and preferences. Patients could also attend regular meetings and access independent advocacy.

    “Both relatives we spoke with told us that the ward manager had taken the time to ask them about their loved ones and valued their input in care planning.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Drinking water was locked away

    serious

    Patients could not freely access water in communal areas and had to ask staff for a drink. The restriction was not assessed for each patient or included in the restrictions log.

    “Patients did not have open access to water in communal areas.” from the report
  • Training completion was below target

    needs fixing

    The report says some staff were still completing induction and the overall training compliance was below the provider’s target. Managers said training would be completed during the 12-week induction.

    “Due to a large number of new starters the overall training compliance for the service was below the providers target of 75%.” from the report
  • Dementia-friendly changes still needed

    minor

    The home had identified improvements needed to signage and room colours through an audit. Inspectors said the action plan should be followed through.

    “The provider should follow through on its action plan to ensure the ward environments are dementia friendly where appropriate.” from the report
  • Some records and reviews needed attention

    needs fixing

    The ward manager had not completed care plan audits since October 2019, and not all staff could update electronic records or had their own computer log-in.

    “The ward manager had completed care plan audits in the previous months however had not completed any since October 2019.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Is drinking water now freely available in all communal areas, without patients needing to ask staff?
  2. 02How do you assess and record any restrictions for each individual patient?
  3. 03What action have you taken to complete staff training and reach the provider’s 75% target?
  4. 04Have care plan audits restarted, and how do you check that care plans remain up to date?
  5. 05What changes have been made to improve signage, colours and other dementia-friendly features?

This was a comprehensive inspection of the wards for older people with mental health problems and covered all five key questions; it was the home’s first inspection since registration. 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 story over the years

Every inspection of St Martha's

Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.

  1. March 2020Goodcurrent rating
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at St Martha's →

  2. July 2019

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 July 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire

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 £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.

“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
Emily B., about Prisca S.
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
Roderick N., about Jaison M.
See live-in carers near HampshireProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.