CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at St Peter's Care and Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risk assessments, medicines systems, staffing and infection control arrangements were found to be suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had received training and supervision, people's dietary and healthcare needs were supported, and staff worked with health and social care professionals. Inspectors identified weaknesses in fluid monitoring, but the home acted on this during the inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- People, relatives and professionals described staff as kind, respectful and supportive. Inspectors observed people being treated with dignity and encouraged to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, choices and preferences. The home supported communication, activities, family contact, complaints and end of life care.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management systems had improved and were being used, but leadership and record keeping were not yet fully consistent. Concerns included fluid records, personal care records, contractors using home corridors and dust affecting clinical areas.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Rated Good overall; care was safe, effective, kind and responsive, but well-led was Requires Improvement because records and building-work controls were not yet consistent.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 21 and 25 February 2022. One inspector looked around the home, observed care, spoke with people, staff, relatives and health professionals, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
Inspectors found that people were safe, received suitable care and had their health needs met. Staff were described as kind, respectful and supportive. People had personalised care plans, choices about daily life, support with food and drink, and help to stay in contact with family.
The main weakness was leadership and record keeping. Fluid charts were not always completed clearly, some personal care records did not show whether support was offered again, and building work created problems with dust and cleaning. Some issues were acted on during the inspection.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Well-led remained Requires Improvement, meaning the home had improved but its management systems still needed time and further work to become consistent.
Kind and respectful care
People and visitors consistently described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw positive interactions and support that respected privacy, dignity and independence.
“We saw some lovely interactions between staff and people which told us that staff knew people well and how to make them laugh.” from the report
Safer care planning
Care plans and risk assessments gave staff clear guidance about risks such as falls, skin damage, nutrition and mobility. The home had improved enough to meet the previous breach relating to safe care.
“Care plans and risk assessments identified specific risks to each person and provided written guidance for staff on how to minimise or prevent the risk of harm.” from the report
Medicines and staffing
Medicines were administered by trained staff and checks were completed. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and robust recruitment checks.
“We observed staff giving medicines safely to people ensuring that they were offered the medicines, given time to take them in the way that they preferred and signed for once they were taken.” from the report
Personalised support
People's care plans reflected their choices and preferences. Staff knew people well and supported activities, communication, family contact and end of life wishes.
“The care plans were individual and reflected a person-centred approach to care.” from the report
Improved management
A new registered manager was in post and quality checks were being used. Staff said the service and support from management had improved.
“Quality assurance systems were in place and were being used effectively to improve the service.” from the report
Inconsistent hydration records
needs fixingFluid charts were not always clear or complete. At the time of inspection, there were no specific fluid goals for people at risk of dehydration, although this was corrected immediately.
“Fluid charts were inconsistently recorded which meant that staff may not be able to monitor their health and well-being effectively.” from the report
Incomplete daily care records
needs fixingRecords sometimes showed that personal care had been declined but did not show whether it was offered again or accepted later. Staff told inspectors they did offer support again.
“Inconsistencies were found in daily records.” from the report
Building work and clinical areas
needs fixingContractors used home corridors despite the building-work risk assessment, bringing dust and dirt inside. Dust was also found on surfaces in clinical areas, so the cleanliness of medical equipment needed review.
“The staff had continued to use the staff office and clinical room on the nursing wing during the building works.” from the report
Undated clinical fridge items
needs fixingSome items in the clinical fridge had not been dated when opened. They were destroyed immediately and a medicines refresher was arranged.
“We found items in the clinical fridge that had not been dated on opening.” from the report
- 01What specific fluid intake goals are now recorded for people at risk of dehydration, and how are these checked?
- 02How do you make sure daily records show what happened when someone initially declines personal care?
- 03How are contractors kept out of home corridors, and how are dust and dirt controlled during building work?
- 04How do you check that clinical rooms and medical equipment remain clean and fit for use?
- 05Have resident and family meetings now restarted, and how are families' views used to improve the home?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control and a review of the previous breaches. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 March 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.
What inspectors found, February 2021
St Peter's Care and Nursing Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 11 February 2021. It was carried out because the home had experienced a coronavirus outbreak and focused on infection prevention and control.
Inspectors found the home clean and well maintained. They were assured that visitors, admissions, testing, personal protective equipment, social distancing, hygiene and outbreak management were being handled safely.
The home was inspected but not rated overall. This report does not provide ratings for the other areas of care, such as whether care was effective, caring, responsive or well-led.
Clean premises
The home was clean and maintained well. Cleaning took place regularly, including on frequently touched areas.
“The home was very clean and well maintained. There was regular cleaning throughout the day, and this included high-touch areas.” from the report
Personal protective equipment
Staff had enough personal protective equipment and were seen using it correctly. They had received training on using it safely.
“Staff were provided with adequate supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) and staff were seen to be wearing this appropriately.” from the report
Testing arrangements
The home had regular testing and health checks for people living there and for staff.
“Regular testing for people and staff was taking place.” from the report
Family contact
Although most visitors were not allowed during the lockdown, staff helped people stay in contact with families by phone and video calls.
“Staff also supported people to remain in contact with their families through phone and video calls during the lock down.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current visiting arrangements, and are visitors still required to use personal protective equipment and take a lateral flow test?
- 02How are new residents tested and supported during their 14-day isolation period?
- 03How often are residents and staff currently tested?
- 04How will you help my relative keep in touch with family if visits are restricted?
- 05How are shared dining and communal areas managed to maintain social distancing?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; the service was inspected but not rated overall and the other key questions were not covered in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 February 2021 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 Peter's Care and Nursing Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at St Peter's Care and Nursing Home →
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at St Peter's Care and Nursing Home →
- August 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 December 2018.
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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.