CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Mary's Convent
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine arrangements, suitable risk assessments and effective safeguarding systems. The home was clean and safety checks were satisfactory.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed before admission. Staff supported eating and drinking, healthcare access and lawful decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed to be kind, patient, respectful and considerate. People were involved in decisions and supported to keep their privacy and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reviewed regularly. People were supported with activities, relationships, spirituality, communication and end of life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a clear management structure, regular feedback and meetings, and quality checks that were completed and reviewed.
What inspectors found, December 2019
St Mary's Convent was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no major shortfalls identified.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 13 November 2019. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with seven people, four relatives and five staff. They also reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The inspectors found that people were safe and that there were enough staff. Medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed and staff understood safeguarding. The home was clean and maintained, although it was waiting for a new passenger lift and had temporary arrangements in place.
People received care that reflected their needs, choices and preferences. Staff were described as kind and respectful. People were supported with food, healthcare, activities, family contact and end of life care.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating and the same rating for each area as at the previous inspection, published on 5 July 2017.
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, and many staff had worked at the home for several years. Medicines records and staff competency checks supported safe medicines management.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Many staff had worked at the service for several years so support was consistent for people.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff understood people's preferences and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions about their care.
“Staff were observed to be kind, patient, respectful and considerate.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered people's health and social needs and gave staff detailed guidance. Plans were reviewed and reflected people's current needs.
“Care plans were reviewed regularly and reflected people's current needs.” from the report
Support at the end of life
The home involved people and relatives in end of life discussions. Inspectors saw staff support visiting relatives while maintaining privacy and dignity.
“We witnessed staff caring for visiting relatives and ensuring their privacy and dignity was maintained.” from the report
Good management
The home had regular meetings, sought people's feedback and used audits to monitor quality and safety.
“Audits were used to assess standards and drive up improvements.” from the report
Passenger lift not yet installed
minorThe home was waiting for a new passenger lift. It had temporary arrangements, including extra staff at mealtimes, to help people receive their meals promptly.
“The service was waiting for a new passenger lift to be installed and had put interim measures in place” from the report
Training records being updated
minorThe training provider had recently changed, so the staff training matrix was being updated. Families may wish to ask how the home checks that training remains current.
“The registered manager had recently changed training provider and so the training matrix was currently being updated with new information.” from the report
- 01Has the new passenger lift been installed, and what arrangements are used while it is unavailable?
- 02How do you make sure people who need help with eating or drinking receive prompt support?
- 03How often are care plans reviewed, and how are people's changing preferences recorded?
- 04How do you check that staff training and competency records remain up to date?
- 05How are relatives involved in planning end of life care when this is needed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that covered all five CQC questions, and the home was rated Good in each one. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 December 2019 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, July 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with all five areas rated Good.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 June 2017. Inspectors spoke with seven people living at the home, six visitors and several staff. They also reviewed care plans, staff records and management records.
The home provided accommodation and personal care for up to 18 older people. There were 15 people living there at the inspection. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines arrangements, clean and well-maintained premises, and staff who understood safeguarding procedures.
People were supported with food, healthcare, activities and contact with family and the local community. Inspectors saw staff treating people kindly, respectfully and with dignity. Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed.
The home was rated Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection on 4 May 2015. The report says the home met all the fundamental standards inspected against.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff supporting people gently and positively. Staff promoted dignity, privacy, choice and independence.
“We saw positive interactions between staff and people throughout our inspection.” from the report
Personalised care planning
Care plans included people's daily needs, preferences, life histories and risks. They were reviewed and updated when needed.
“People's care records were personalised to reflect their individual preferences, support and what they could manage for themselves.” from the report
Open management
Staff were consulted and supported, while feedback from people and relatives was reviewed and acted on. The provider also carried out audits and questionnaires.
“This showed the service listened and acted on feedback.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative if their care needs changed and they needed nursing care, which this home does not provide?
- 02How do you decide staffing levels when people's needs or numbers change?
- 03How will you involve my relative and our family in care plan reviews and decisions about their care?
- 04What activities and trips into the local community would be suitable for my relative?
- 05How should we raise a concern or complaint, and how will we be kept informed about the outcome?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions; the home provided personal care but not nursing care. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 July 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 Mary's Convent
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 January 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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £960 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.