CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at St Patricks Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found unclean areas, incorrectly stored protective equipment, incomplete risk monitoring and medicines records that did not always show medicines were given safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People generally received effective support, including timely referrals to health professionals and help with food and drink. Mental capacity assessments were not always completed promptly.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with dignity and respect, and staff were observed to be considerate. People said staff listened to their views and relatives were positive about the care.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Care plans did not always give staff enough current, person-specific information, including information about some health conditions and one-to-one support needs.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management checks did not identify all the problems found by inspectors, and actions did not always have clear timescales. Staff said managers were approachable and there was a positive staff culture.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but serious gaps in safety, care records and management.
This was the first inspection of the home since it registered under the current provider. Inspectors visited unannounced on 9 and 11 November 2022. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was not always safe. Inspectors found unclean areas, poor storage of protective equipment, incomplete risk assessments and medicines records that did not always show medicines were given safely. Care plans also did not always contain enough current information to guide staff.
People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff were described as experienced and approachable. Food, healthcare support, complaints handling and activities were viewed positively. However, the systems used to check and improve safety were not reliable enough.
The overall rating of Requires Improvement means the service was not consistently meeting the expected standard. The ratings were Good for Effective and Caring, and Requires Improvement for Safe, Responsive and Well-led.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Inspectors saw staff protecting people's dignity and privacy during personal care.
“Our observations found that staff were caring in their approach and they interacted with people in a very considerate and respectful manner.” from the report
Healthcare support
The home responded promptly when people's needs changed and made appropriate referrals to other services.
“When people's needs changed, the provider was extremely responsive and appropriate referrals to other agencies were made in a timely manner.” from the report
Food and independence
People were positive about the food. Staff supported people to eat and drink, including through adapted cutlery and plates.
“Independence with food and drink was promoted through the use of adapted cutlery and plates.” from the report
Staff availability and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely at the time of the visit. Recruitment checks had been completed.
“There were enough staff to support people safely.” from the report
Cleanliness and infection control
seriousUnclean floors and walls were seen on both inspection days. Protective equipment was stored in a way that could allow cross-contamination.
“Unclean areas of the home were observed across both days of the inspection.” from the report
Risk checks and medicines
seriousSome risks were not assessed or monitored promptly. Medicines records did not always show administration times or that thickener had been used correctly.
“Medication administration records did not always evidence that people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Care plans
needs fixingSome care plans lacked specific and up-to-date instructions, including plans for diabetes and one-to-one support.
“Not all care plans contained sufficient information to guide staff on people's current care, treatment and support needs.” from the report
Management oversight
seriousAudits did not find all the problems identified by inspectors. Earlier concerns about medicines and infection control had not been dealt with effectively.
“The failure to effectively monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service is a breach of regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.” from the report
Incident analysis
minorThe home recorded incidents, but did not always analyse individual incidents fully. Inspectors recommended reviewing this system.
“However, we found that not all individual incidents were effectively analysed.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to cleaning standards and the storage of protective equipment since the inspection?
- 02How do you now make sure every person's risks are assessed promptly and monitored regularly?
- 03How do you check that medicines records show the correct administration times and that prescribed thickener is used?
- 04How are care plans kept accurate and updated when a person's needs change?
- 05What evidence can you show that management audits now identify concerns and record clear dates for fixing them?
This was an unannounced first comprehensive inspection of the newly registered service, covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control; the previous provider was rated Good in April 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 2022 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 Patricks Care Home
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- December 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 November 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.
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 an hour of Halton
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during 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.