CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Peters Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staff understood people's risks, safeguarding procedures and medicines support. Recruitment checks were completed, but inspectors said full employment histories needed to be recorded for all staff.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training, supervision and support. People were helped to make choices, prepare meals, access healthcare and maintain their wellbeing.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind, respectful and listened to them. Staff supported privacy, family contact and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were reviewed with people and staff responded to changes in wellbeing. People had activities, choices and ways to raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider had introduced audits and acted on areas needing improvement. This rating improved from Requires improvement in 2015 to Good.
What inspectors found, September 2018
St Peters Hall rated Good; inspectors found caring, safe and responsive support, with a small recruitment-record shortfall to address.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 15 August 2018. The inspector spoke with six people living at the home, a relative, staff and healthcare professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home supports up to 12 adults with mental health needs. All 12 units were occupied. Inspectors found people were supported to live independently and received care that reflected their needs and choices.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The home remained Good overall. The well-led rating improved from Requires improvement at the previous inspection in 2015 because the provider had improved its audits, care reviews and action planning.
Safe support
Staff understood people's individual risks and how to reduce them. People said staff were available when support was needed.
“People continued to receive care and support from staff who understood how to keep them safe.” from the report
Medicines
People said they received their medicines on time. Staff training, daily record checks and an external pharmacy audit supported safe medicines practice.
“Daily checks of the medicine record sheets were made by the management team to ensure staff had correctly recorded the medicines they had given to people.” from the report
Respect and independence
People were involved in decisions about their care and were supported to cook, shop, keep their rooms clean and stay in contact with family and friends.
“[Staff] encourage me to cook and keep my room clean and be independent.” from the report
Improved management
The provider had improved its monitoring and acted when problems were found. This led to the well-led rating improving from Requires improvement to Good.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made audits were in place and action had been where required” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingInspectors found that recruitment records did not always include a full employment history. The provider said this would be addressed immediately after the inspection.
“they needed to strengthen the process further and ensure a full employment history was completed for all staff.” from the report
- 01Have full employment histories now been completed for every member of staff?
- 02How often are care plans and risk assessments reviewed, and how are changes recorded?
- 03How are medicines records checked, and what action is taken if an error is found?
- 04What activities and support are available for a person with particular interests, cultural needs or faith?
- 05How can residents and relatives raise concerns, and how will the home show what action was taken?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 September 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 Hall
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 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 14 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Birmingham
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 £950 to £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.