CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Peters Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- The service was inspected but not rated for safety. Inspectors were assured about most infection-control arrangements, but found that the policy did not always reflect national guidance and high-risk staff had not always been risk assessed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2021
St Peters Care Home: inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control measures but some policy and staff risk assessments needed updating.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 24 February 2021. It followed concerns about infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic. The inspection looked at infection-control measures only.
Inspectors found many safeguards in place. These included hand sanitising, masks, visitor testing, regular testing for people and staff, suitable protective equipment, cleaning of frequently touched surfaces, and arrangements for isolation. Staff had also volunteered to live at the home temporarily to help maintain staffing levels.
The inspection did not give an overall quality rating. The Safe question was marked inspected but not rated. Inspectors were somewhat assured that the infection-control policy was up to date because it did not always reflect national guidance, although it was reviewed and updated after the visit.
Entry and visitor controls
Visitors and staff had to sanitise their hands, wear face coverings and complete lateral flow testing before entering. Indoor visits were restricted to people at the end of life at the time of the inspection.
“Staff and visitors had to sanitise their hands, put on face mask and were asked to complete Lateral Flow Device test (LFD)” from the report
Protective equipment
The home had enough gloves, aprons and face coverings. Inspectors saw staff using protective equipment appropriately.
“The home had adequate supplies of PPE and we saw staff wearing PPE appropriately.” from the report
Testing and health checks
Regular testing was in place for people living at the home and staff. Staff also monitored people's temperatures and COVID-19 symptoms.
“Regular testing was in place for people living at the home and staff who worked there.” from the report
Cleaning
The home was clean and uncluttered. Cleaning schedules were completed and checked, with regular cleaning of high-touch areas.
“The home was clean and uncluttered. The cleaning schedules had been regularly completed and audited.” from the report
Staffing during the outbreak
Some staff temporarily moved into the home during the pandemic. This was intended to help maintain safe staffing levels.
“Throughout the pandemic some staff had volunteered to temporarily move into the home to ensure safe staffing levels were maintained at all times.” from the report
Policy was not fully up to date
needs fixingThe infection-prevention policy and contingency planning did not always reflect national guidance at the time of the inspection. The policy was reviewed and updated after the visit.
“Providers Infection Prevention and Control policy and contingency planning had not always reflected national guidance.” from the report
High-risk staff assessments
needs fixingStaff in a high-risk group had not been risk assessed, and suitable adjustments had not always been made. Inspectors said this potentially put those staff at higher risk of infection.
“Staff in the high-risk group have not been risk assessed and adjustments have not always been made.” from the report
- 01How does the current infection-prevention and control policy reflect national guidance?
- 02Have all staff in high-risk groups now had an individual risk assessment?
- 03What adjustments are made for staff identified as being at higher risk of infection?
- 04What testing, PPE and hand-sanitising arrangements are currently required for visitors and staff?
- 05What visiting arrangements are currently in place, including visits for people who are not at the end of life?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 March 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.
What inspectors found, January 2018
St Peters Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some gaps in safeguarding knowledge, staff supervision and meetings.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 28 and 29 November 2017. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and other professionals, and checked care records, medicines records, training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good, and all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection in October 2015.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable risk assessments, clean premises and good support with food, health and personal choices. People were treated with kindness and dignity, and care was tailored to their needs.
There were some areas to improve. Some staff were unclear about making safeguarding referrals themselves, formal staff supervision had not taken place for four months, and staff and resident meetings had been limited. The report does not record any breaches or enforcement action.
Kind and respectful care
People had positive relationships with staff. Inspectors saw staff communicate calmly, protect privacy and respond to distress with reassurance.
“People were supported by staff who were very kind and compassionate.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and saw that medicines were given by trained staff at the right times.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and were given them by trained staff who ensured medicines were administered on time.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's likes, dislikes, routines and dietary preferences. Staff adapted care when people's choices changed.
“People continued to receive care that met their individual needs.” from the report
Family and community contact
The home supported people to stay in touch with relatives using visits, telephone, email and Skype. People were also supported to take part in local activities.
“The service used alternative methods to support family to stay in contact if they were unable to visit the home.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used regular audits and action plans to monitor areas such as medicines, infection control and the environment.
“The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Safeguarding referral knowledge
needs fixingStaff understood who to report concerns to within the home, but some were unclear about how to make a safeguarding referral themselves. The manager said this would be addressed through supervision and team meetings.
“there was some confusion about how to make a safeguarding referral themselves.” from the report
Gap in staff supervision
needs fixingThe last formal staff supervision had taken place four months before the inspection. The manager said this was an area they would address.
“However we found the last supervision had taken place in July 2017.” from the report
Limited meetings
minorStaff and resident meetings had taken place but were limited. The manager said they would be re-implemented.
“Staff and resident meetings had taken place, but were limited.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that every staff member knows how to make a safeguarding referral themselves?
- 02How often do staff receive formal supervision, and when was the most recent session?
- 03How regularly are staff and resident meetings now held, and how are suggestions acted on?
- 04How have staffing levels and training kept pace with the increase from 18 to 38 beds?
- 05How are care plans reviewed with residents and families, including end of life wishes and personal routines?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the report says both the accommodation and care provided were looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 January 2018 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 Peters Care Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.