CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Peters Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visitors, admissions, PPE, testing, hygiene, social distancing and outbreaks.
- 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, January 2021
Targeted infection-control inspection; the home had safe practices in place, but the service was inspected and not rated.
Inspectors visited the home on 9 December 2020. The visit was announced and focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus outbreak.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, social distancing, new admissions, testing, cleaning, outbreaks and infection-control policies safely. Staff had access to personal protective equipment and PPE stations were available around the home.
The home was not given an overall rating or a rating for safe care. This report was a focused check of infection-control arrangements, not a full inspection of the quality of care.
PPE available
Staff used masks, gloves and aprons when providing personal care, and PPE was available at stations around the home.
“Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) such as fluid repellent surgical masks, gloves, and apron when delivering personal care to all people.” from the report
Hand sanitiser
The home had hand sanitiser available for people entering and leaving the building.
“Facilities were in place to use hand sanitiser on entering and leaving the home.” from the report
Infection controls
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering visitors, admissions, testing, hygiene and the management of outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Approach needed further development
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection-control approach. The report does not explain what specific changes were required.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made since inspectors signposted you to resources to develop your infection-control approach?
- 02How do you currently manage visits and prevent visitors from spreading infections?
- 03How often are staff and residents tested, and what happens when someone has a positive test?
- 04Where are PPE stations located, and how do you check that staff use PPE safely?
- 05What is your current plan for managing an infection outbreak in the home?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices during the coronavirus outbreak; the service was inspected but not rated and the report does not rate the other care areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 January 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, March 2020
St Peters Home: Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some risk assessments needing more detail.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 27 February 2020. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They also observed care and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable training and good support with health, food, activities and medicines.
People were treated with kindness and respect. The home supported people's choices, relationships, communication needs and end of life wishes. Inspectors said some risk assessments needed more detailed guidance, but this had not affected people and the manager agreed to improve them.
Kind and knowledgeable staff
Inspectors found that staff knew people well and responded with kindness and compassion when people were anxious or distressed.
“People were supported by staff who were caring, compassionate and knew them well.” from the report
Enough staff
Staffing was based on people's needs and increased when people became unwell. Inspectors saw that people did not have to wait for help.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised activities and care
Activities were based on people's hobbies and interests. Care plans included people's life stories, preferences and preferred gender of care worker.
“People were supported to take part in a range of activities, which were designed around their likes, hobbies and interests.” from the report
Support for families
Relatives were made welcome and involved in care decisions. The home also helped people maintain relationships and supported families during end of life care.
“People's loved ones were supported to be with them at the end of their lives if they wished.” from the report
Some risk assessments needed more detail
needs fixingInspectors said some assessments did not give enough guidance to staff about helping people calm when agitated. The manager agreed to add more detail, and inspectors said this had not affected people.
“some risk assessments would benefit from more detailed guidance for staff in relation to helping people to calm when they were agitated.” from the report
Responsive rating fell from Outstanding
minorThe Responsive rating changed from Outstanding at the previous inspection to Good at this inspection. The current rating still means inspectors found people's needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
“At this inspection this key question has now deteriorated to good.” from the report
- 01What extra detail has been added to risk assessments for people who may become agitated?
- 02How will staff know what helps each person calm and feel reassured?
- 03Why did the Responsive rating fall from Outstanding to Good since the 2017 inspection?
- 04How are relatives involved when a person's care needs or health changes?
- 05How are activities matched to each person's interests, communication needs and abilities?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating and all five previous question ratings were published on 30 June 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 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 Peters Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.