What the CQC found at St Michaels Court

People spoken with said they felt safe living in the home. Staff generally understood how to raise safeguarding concerns.

“Most staff were clear about escalating safeguarding concerns. People felt safe living in the service.” from the report

People described staff as kind, patient and respectful. They also said staff protected their dignity and offered choices about who provided personal care.

“People spoke highly of staff and told us they were kind and caring.” from the report

People had enough food and could choose what and where to eat. Food was one of the areas people spoke positively about.

“People could exercise choice and had access to sufficient food throughout the day and they could eat where they liked to.” from the report

Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment effectively and had arrangements for preventing and managing infection outbreaks.

“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report

The manager was open about the problems and had started immediate work on medicines, training, care plans and safety checks.

“The manager responded to our inspection in an open and transparent way and looked to address shortfalls identified” from the report

Staff did not always follow safe medicines procedures. One person missed morning medicines, some records and instructions were incomplete, and checks had not been completed regularly.

“Systems and audits were not in place to ensure medicines were administered safely and staff did not have regular checks on their practice.” from the report

Some care plans and risk assessments were inaccurate or incomplete. Staff did not always follow the guidance, including guidance about safe drinking positions, which created risks.

“Care records were not all up to date and accurate to people's needs and staff did not always follow guidance within them.” from the report

There were times when staffing levels were too low, particularly in the mornings and around meals. Staff training, competency checks and supervision were not consistently up to date.

“People were not consistently receiving high-quality, timely care due to levels of staffing.” from the report

People were not consistently offered the amount of fluid they needed, especially at weekends. Inspectors said this placed people at risk of dehydration.

“People did not consistently receive enough to drink which risked dehydration.” from the report

Audits were not completed reliably and did not identify all the problems found by inspectors. Complaints were also not recorded and monitored through a clear system.

“Due to lack of systems and processes to effectively monitor the quality of service provision the service people were placed at risk of harm.” from the report