CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at St Rita's Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found safe staffing, recruitment, medicines practice and infection control, including care for people at risk of choking.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and supervision. People received support with eating, drinking, healthcare and communication, although some mental capacity records were not always clear.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with respect, protected their privacy and supported independence. People and relatives said staff knew them well and involved them in decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reflected people's preferences, communication needs, activities, relationships and faith. Visitors were welcomed and end-of-life support was planned around people's wishes.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management systems did not consistently identify incomplete or inaccurate records, or ensure relatives' negative feedback was addressed. This resulted in a breach of Regulation 17.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, safe care, but weaknesses in records, feedback and quality checks.
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home. Inspectors visited without notice on 9 and 14 February 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care, medicines, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training, respectful care, personalised support and activities that reflected people's interests.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement because Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Quality checks did not always find gaps in care records and assessments. Feedback from relatives was not always dealt with promptly.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff and safe recruitment. Medicines were administered by trained and assessed staff, with suitable records and reviews.
“People received their medicines in a person centred and timely way, staff were trained and assessed as competent before administering people's medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, respected their dignity and encouraged them to remain independent. People and relatives spoke positively about the support.
“People were encouraged to retain their autonomy and staff treated them with respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, goals and communication needs. Staff worked with families and professionals to provide individual support.
“Care plans were person-centred and included people's wishes, goals and aspirations.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were offered regular activities based on their interests and histories. Families and visitors were welcomed, and people could maintain relationships outside the home.
“A schedule of activities included arts and crafts, reminiscence and entertainment.” from the report
Good partnership working
Staff worked with health and social care professionals, including speech and language therapists, dieticians and falls prevention teams.
“Staff worked well in partnership with health and social care agencies and were keen to continually improve people's experience of care.” from the report
Care records were incomplete
needs fixingRecords did not always show the care people received. For example, staff did not always record when some people had been helped to move and change position.
“Quality monitoring processes had not highlighted people's care records were not always reflective of the care they received.” from the report
Assessment information was inconsistent
needs fixingSome assessment tools contained inconsistent or incorrect information. Inspectors said this could confuse staff when providing care.
“Inconsistencies could lead to confusion to staff when delivering care.” from the report
Relatives' feedback was not always acted on
needs fixingNegative comments in a relatives' survey were not always addressed or followed by shared improvement plans. This included concerns about whether people were stimulated.
“The results had been analysed; negative comments had not always been addressed.” from the report
Governance breach
seriousThe provider's quality monitoring systems were not consistently effective. They failed to identify and drive improvement in the shortfalls found.
“The provider's governance systems were not always effective and failed to consistently assess, monitor and drive improvement in service delivery.” from the report
- 01How are you now checking that care delivered, including moving and positioning support, is recorded every time?
- 02What changes have been made to prevent incorrect or missing information in people's assessment tools?
- 03What did you do about the relatives' feedback that some people were not stimulated, and how are you checking whether activities have improved?
- 04What actions were included in the Regulation 17 action plan, and what progress has been made?
- 05How are families now involved in giving feedback and seeing what the home will do in response?
This was an unannounced first inspection that assessed all five key questions and included infection prevention and control checks. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 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 Rita's Care Home
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 January 2022.
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.