CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Patrick's House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found medicines were now managed safely and infection control measures were in place.
This was an announced targeted inspection on 4 August 2020. Inspectors spoke with three people, the registered manager and a provider representative. They reviewed records about medicines and infection prevention and control.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement and had breached Regulation 12 because medicines were not always recorded safely. At this inspection, inspectors found the required improvements had been made. Medicines records were complete, staff had training, and managers carried out checks.
Inspectors were also assured about infection prevention measures, including the use of protective equipment, testing, social distancing and hygiene. The home was inspected but not rated because this visit only checked specific concerns and did not reassess the full service.
Medicines were managed safely
Records showed people received their medicines at the right time and dose. There were protocols for medicines given when needed, and staff recorded whether these had worked.
“At this inspection we found the provider had taken the action needed to ensure medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Staff training and checks
Staff who administered medicines had training. Managers observed their practice and carried out regular audits and weekly stock checks.
“Staff administering medicines had received training. The management team completed observations to ensure staff were putting their training into practice.” from the report
Infection control arrangements
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering protective equipment, testing, social distancing, admissions and infection outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are medicines administration records checked now, and how often are these checks reviewed?
- 02How do you make sure staff follow the protocols for medicines given 'as required'?
- 03How do you check that staff remain competent to administer medicines?
- 04What infection prevention measures are still in place for visitors, testing and protective equipment?
- 05What were the other concerns in the previous comprehensive inspection, and what has been done about them?
This was a targeted inspection of medicines management and infection prevention and control; it did not reassess the full key questions or change the previous ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 August 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.
What inspectors found, March 2020
St Patrick's House was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but medicines were not managed safely and a warning notice was served.
This was an unannounced inspection on 06 February 2020. The inspector spoke with people, staff, the manager, relatives and healthcare professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, recruitment and management records.
People generally received kind and personalised support. Staff helped people make choices, stay independent, keep relationships and take part in activities. The home was clean, staffing levels were enough, and staff were trained and supported.
The main problem was medicines management. Records had gaps, some entries were not signed, and medicine changes were not always recorded accurately. The home had improved some safety arrangements since the last inspection, but not enough improvement had been made overall.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement for the second inspection in a row. Safe and well-led were Requires Improvement. Effective, caring and responsive were Good. The provider was still in breach of Regulation 12 and received a warning notice.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw people relaxed around staff and the manager.
“People were treated with respect and kindness. We saw and heard interactions with people and staff and observed people were relaxed around staff and the manager.” from the report
Personalised support
Care was based on people's routines, preferences and communication needs. People were supported to make choices and become more independent.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks had been completed before staff started work.
“People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff. People told us there were enough staff to support them and our observations confirmed this.” from the report
Choice and community life
People chose what to eat, when to get up and which activities or outings to enjoy. Staff supported contact with friends and family.
“People were able to follow their own interests and do activities they enjoyed. Staff supported them where appropriate.” from the report
Medicine records were not safe enough
seriousMedicine administration records had gaps, missing signatures and inaccurate changes. Some medicines prescribed for use when needed did not have enough guidance or were missing from the records. This created a risk of harm.
“Not enough improvement had been made at this inspection to manage people's medicines safely and the provider was still in breach of regulation 12.” from the report
One authorisation had expired
needs fixingOne legal authorisation relating to a person's liberty had expired. The home had requested a renewal and was waiting for a further assessment, while the conditions were being met.
“There was one DoLS authorisation in place which had expired.” from the report
People's meetings had lapsed
minorThe manager said meetings for people had not been held recently. They planned to restart them so people could discuss their views together.
“'House meetings' for people had not been held recently.” from the report
- 01What checks are now used to make sure every medicine is recorded correctly and every medicine administration record is complete and signed?
- 02How do you record changes to medicines, and how do you make sure staff follow the new instructions?
- 03What guidance is available for medicines prescribed only when needed, and how is this reviewed?
- 04What progress has been made on the action plan following the warning notice?
- 05Has the expired authorisation been renewed, and how are people and their representatives involved in that process?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with records, staff, people, relatives and healthcare professionals consulted. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 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.
Every inspection of St Patrick's House
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- August 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 December 2010.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about two hours of Wiltshire
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 £1,340 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Linet became her carer and all changed, my daughter started eating, taking her medications and more important her happiness came back.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.