CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Oggs
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and enough staff, but important records, risk management and oversight were not reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection over 19, 20 and 27 September 2019. One inspector spoke with eight people, staff and managers, and reviewed five people's care records, two staff files, training information and other service records.
The home was caring, and people said staff treated them well and knew them. There were enough staff, people were supported to attend health appointments and take part in activities, and staff worked with other professionals.
However, risk assessments, medicines guidance, care plans and other records were incomplete or not regularly reviewed. Staff supervision and training were not fully up to date. The home also needed improvements to parts of the environment and its quality checks.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good. The rating had fallen from Good at the previous inspection, published in November 2016.
Kind and respectful care
People described good care and said staff knew them well. Staff responded with kindness when people were unwell or distressed.
“I am happy here. I can have a laugh with staff. They help me when I need it.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff on duty, including extra one-to-one support when planned.
“There were enough staff on duty to care for people. Additional staff were put in place to support people with planned one-to-one hours.” from the report
Support with health needs
Staff noticed when people were unwell, supported them to attend appointments and worked with health professionals.
“Staff recognised when people were unwell and supported them to access medical assistance.” from the report
Community activities
People were supported to take part in activities and visit local places using the home's minibus.
“The service had use of a minibus twice per week. People used the bus to access local areas.” from the report
Incomplete risk information
seriousRisk assessments were not regularly reviewed and did not always explain how current risks were managed. Risks linked to hoarding, clutter and some behaviours were not fully recorded.
“Risk assessment records had not been regularly reviewed and required further detail to show how the current risks to people were managed.” from the report
Medicines records and guidance
seriousSome as-needed medicines did not have enough guidance, including information about variable doses and alternatives to medicines used for behaviour.
“Protocols for 'as and when required' medicines did not provide the information needed.” from the report
Weak care records
needs fixingRecords did not contain the detail staff held about people's strengths, independence, health needs and end of life wishes. Some incident and activity records were also incomplete or not used for review.
“Records did not contain the same level of knowledge which staff had. They did not review the person's strengths, independence or quality of life.” from the report
Management oversight
seriousQuality checks had not identified concerns found during inspection. The registered manager was included in staffing numbers, so oversight was not always in place.
“The registered manager was included into staff numbers. As a result, the required oversight of the service was not always in place.” from the report
- 01How have you updated risk assessments, including those for hoarding, behaviours and environmental hazards?
- 02What information now accompanies as-needed medicines and medicines used for behaviour?
- 03How do you make sure care records reflect each person's strengths, independence, health needs and end of life wishes?
- 04How often do staff receive supervision, and is all required training now complete?
- 05How is management oversight maintained when the registered manager is counted in the staffing numbers?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with both the care provided and the premises reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 November 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, November 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, respectful and personalised care, with no major shortfalls identified.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 18 October 2016. They spoke with 10 people, five staff and the senior support worker. They looked at care records, staff files, rotas, complaints and quality checks.
People said they felt safe, listened to and respected. Inspectors found enough suitably checked staff, safe medicines arrangements and care plans that covered people's risks and needs. Staff were trained and understood how to support people to make their own decisions.
The home supported people's healthcare, food and drink needs, hobbies and personal choices. People were involved in planning their care and could raise complaints. All five areas were rated Good, meaning the inspectors found the service met the required standards at that inspection.
People felt safe
Everyone inspectors spoke with said they felt safe. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse and how to manage risks affecting individuals.
“All of the people we spoke with told us they felt safe living at St Oggs.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's individual needs, wishes and interests. People were involved in decisions about their care, daily life and leisure time.
“Staff had a detailed knowledge of people's individual needs and wishes and provided support in line with them.” from the report
Respect and dignity
People said staff listened to them and treated them fairly. Inspectors saw staff respecting privacy, personal choices and confidential information.
“People were supported to maintain their privacy and were treated with fairness and respect.” from the report
Staffing and training
The home had enough staff on duty and arrangements to cover sickness. Staff had training linked to people's mental health and other support needs.
“There were enough safely recruited staff on duty to meet people's individual needs and wishes.” from the report
Choice and activities
People could choose their food, how they spent their time and whether to join activities. Staff supported hobbies, outings, holidays and time alone.
“People were supported to pursue their hobbies and interests.” from the report
2016 feedback questionnaire was outstanding
minorThe annual questionnaire for 2016 had not been completed when inspectors visited. The report does not say this affected the care provided, but families may want to ask how current feedback is collected.
“The annual questionnaire for 2016 had not yet been completed.” from the report
- 01How will my relative's risks and care plan be reviewed after they move in?
- 02How are medicines checked, recorded and explained to residents?
- 03What training and support will the staff caring for my relative have for their mental health needs?
- 04How will my relative choose activities, outings and time to themselves?
- 05How will my relative and our family give feedback or raise a complaint?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the home, covering all five CQC questions and providing ratings for each. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 November 2016 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 Oggs
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- November 2019Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“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.