CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at St Quentin Senior Living, Residential & Nursing Homes
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. There were enough suitable staff, medicines were generally managed safely, and infection prevention practices were being followed, although some records and medicine protocols needed review.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had a positive and open culture, but its quality checks did not reliably identify conflicting care information or gaps in medicines records.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Rated Good on the cover, but the report also says overall Requires Improvement; safe was Good and well-led Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 5 December 2023. Inspectors checked whether the home had met a previous Warning Notice about good governance. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and an external professional, and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management checks.
Inspectors found improvements in risk assessments and medicines management. People were protected from abuse, there were enough suitable staff, infection control was safe, and the home learned from incidents. However, some care records still contained conflicting information and medicines checks did not identify all recording gaps.
Safe was rated Good. Well-led remained Requires Improvement because the quality checking systems were not reliable enough. The home was no longer in breach of Regulation 17. The report cover says the overall rating was Good, but the report also says the overall rating remained Requires Improvement because some ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood people's risks and how to support them.
“I feel very, very safe here. Staff are very careful in what they do, they definitely know how to support me, I feel safe with them.” from the report
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors found enough staff, including agency staff for some people receiving one-to-one care. Recruitment checks and staff training were in place.
“The provider ensured there were enough suitable staff. This included the use of some agency staff supporting people with 1:1 care.” from the report
Safe infection control
The home was clean and tidy, staff used protective equipment when needed, and infection control checks were carried out.
“People were protected from the risk of infection as staff were following safe infection prevention and control practices.” from the report
Open culture
People and staff could raise concerns and suggestions. Inspectors saw positive interactions and found that managers acted when concerns were identified.
“There was a positive and open culture at the service.” from the report
Conflicting care records
needs fixingSome people's care plans and other records gave different information about the same need. This included unclear instructions about moving and handling support.
“We found some people's records still required reviewing, as they held multiple documents detailing different information of a specific need.” from the report
Medicine recording gaps
needs fixingAudits did not always find missing information. Some insulin was not labelled as required, and staff did not always record where injections had been given.
“Audits were still not effective at identifying gaps in records.” from the report
Some agency staff engagement
needs fixingInspectors observed occasions when agency staff did not spend enough time engaging people in activities that interested them.
“Some agency members of staff did not always support people to ensure they received good outcomes.” from the report
- 01How have you made sure that every person's care plan gives one clear and up-to-date instruction, especially for moving and handling?
- 02How do you check that insulin is labelled correctly and that staff record where injections have been given?
- 03What action has been taken to improve the clarity of constipation medicine instructions?
- 04How are agency staff introduced to each person's needs and supported to provide meaningful activities?
- 05What changes have been made to the quality assurance system since this inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 February 2024 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, October 2023
St Quentin Senior Living, Residential & Nursing Homes was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found generally safe care but weaknesses in medicines and quality checks.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 6, 7 and 22 June 2023. Inspectors looked mainly at Safe and Well-led, including infection control. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
People were generally protected from abuse and avoidable harm. There were enough staff, recruitment checks were completed, infection controls were mostly effective, and medicines records showed people received their medicines. However, some eye drops and oxygen cylinders were not stored safely, and some care plans did not contain enough detail.
The home’s systems for checking quality did not reliably find or fix problems. Records about medicines, fluid intake, bowel movements and repositioning were not always clear or complete. The home remained in breach of Regulation 17, and the CQC issued a warning notice.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement, as did Safe and Well-led. The other areas were not inspected during this visit, so their earlier ratings were carried forward.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to support people, and people did not have to wait long for help. Recruitment checks were also completed.
“There were enough staff to support people and staff were recruited safely.” from the report
Protection from abuse
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns, and training records supported this.
“People were protected from the risk of abuse.” from the report
Infection control
The home was generally clean and had effective arrangements for preventing and managing infections. Some areas still needed refurbishment or cleaning.
“We were assured that the provider was responding effectively to risks and signs of infection.” from the report
Learning from incidents
Managers reviewed safeguarding incidents, accidents and medicines use to identify lessons and reduce risks.
“Lessons had been learned when things had gone wrong.” from the report
Partnership working
The home worked with the local authority and other organisations, and managers said they shared learning and good practice.
“The home embraced working in partnership with other organisations and worked to continuously improve.” from the report
Medicines checks
seriousSome eye drops were not dated or had been kept after the recommended time. A covert medicines record also needed updating, and oxygen storage was not always safe.
“Two people's eye drops did not have an opening date on which could put them at risk of having them administered after the recommended maximum time they should be in use for.” from the report
Incomplete risk information
needs fixingSome care plans and risk assessments did not give staff enough detail. Fluid targets were inconsistent, making it unclear what staff should aim for.
“However, others did not always contain sufficient detail.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousAudits did not reliably identify problems with medicines, care records, bowel movement records or repositioning charts. This was a legal breach.
“Systems were not always effective at identifying and addressing areas for improvement.” from the report
Mixed involvement
needs fixingSome people said they were not asked for their views about living at the home or about their care. Feedback from people and relatives was mixed.
“We received mixed feedback about whether people and relatives felt engaged and involved in the service.” from the report
Unclear repositioning records
needs fixingSome charts did not clearly show that people were being supported to move often enough. Inspectors found no harm had resulted, but the records were not clear.
“Repositioning charts, for people who may be at risk in relation to their skin integrity, were not always clearly completed and did not always demonstrate people were being supported to move regularly enough.” from the report
- 01What has been done to ensure all eye drops are dated, stored correctly and disposed of when they are out of date?
- 02How are you now checking oxygen storage and medicine-room and fridge temperatures?
- 03How will you make sure care plans contain enough detail and that fluid targets are consistent?
- 04How are bowel movements and repositioning now recorded and checked?
- 05How are people and relatives being asked for their views about care and life in the home?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; the other key-question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 October 2023 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 Quentin Senior Living, Residential & Nursing Homes
8 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2024Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at St Quentin Senior Living, Residential & Nursing Homes →
- October 2023Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at St Quentin Senior Living, Residential & Nursing Homes →
- December 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015
Location report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 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 Staffordshire
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 £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.