CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Thomas Complex
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm, and staff understood safeguarding and risk management. Medicines were managed safely overall, but guidance for 'when required' medicines needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so no new rating was given.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so no new rating was given. Inspectors did record very positive comments from people and relatives about staff kindness and support.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so no new rating was given.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had effective audits, clear management oversight and good communication. Inspectors recommended that regular external visits by the provider or its representative should resume.
What inspectors found, August 2023
St Thomas Complex rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care but identified improvements needed in staffing, medicines guidance and external checks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 July 2023. One inspector and one Expert-by-Experience visited the home. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely, kind and trusted staff, suitable safeguarding arrangements, safe medicines systems and effective quality checks.
Inspectors made three recommendations. Staffing and staff deployment on the lower ground floor should be kept under review. Guidance for 'when required' medicines should be clearer. Regular visits by the provider or its representative should resume to provide external checks.
This was not a full review of all five areas. The overall Good rating remained based partly on the previous comprehensive inspection, published in March 2018.
Enough staff for safety
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs promptly and safely. Staff were described as unhurried and available.
“There were sufficient staff to support people safely.” from the report
Kind and trusted staff
People and relatives spoke very positively about staff. They said staff were kind, caring, supportive and knew people's preferences.
“People and relatives were very complimentary about the care provided by staff. They trusted the staff who supported them.” from the report
Safe safeguarding and risk systems
Staff had safeguarding training, knew how to raise concerns and followed guidance about people's risks. Incidents were reviewed and lessons were shared.
“People received safe care because staff learned from safety alerts and incidents.” from the report
Good management checks
The home used audits to monitor care and acted when improvements were identified. Staff and relatives said communication was effective.
“Quality assurance within the service was effective, with audits undertaken to ensure good governance.” from the report
Good infection control and visiting
Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, cleanliness and the safe use of protective equipment. There were no visiting restrictions.
“There were no restrictions to visiting and the provider followed guidance if an outbreak was to occur.” from the report
Lower ground floor staffing
needs fixingAlthough staffing was sufficient for safety, inspectors wanted staffing levels and staff deployment on the lower ground floor reviewed so people could stay engaged and occupied if they wished.
“We recommend staffing levels and staff deployment are kept under review on the lower ground floor, so people are kept engaged and occupied, if they wish.” from the report
Guidance for 'when required' medicines
needs fixingMedicine systems were safe overall, but care plans did not clearly explain when some 'when required' medicines should be given, including for pain, agitation or distress.
“We recommend ensuring protocols are in place, for the guidance of staff, about when to use 'when required' medicines, where prescribed, including for their use where a person may be in pain, or agitated and use as a last resort.” from the report
External oversight
minorRegular visits by the provider or its representative had stopped during the pandemic. Inspectors said these visits should resume to provide additional checks on how the home was run.
“We recommend regular visits to the service by the provider, or their representative should resume, to provide external checks of the service.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to staffing levels and staff deployment on the lower ground floor?
- 02How do you make sure people on the lower ground floor are offered activities and company if they want them?
- 03What written protocols are now in place for 'when required' medicines, including medicines for pain, agitation or distress?
- 04How often are medicine stocks checked, and how do you identify missed doses promptly?
- 05Have regular visits by the provider or its representative resumed, and what do these checks cover?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the overall rating remained Good using findings from this inspection and ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 August 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.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection control and visiting arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 7 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19-related staffing pressures were affecting the home.
Inspectors found up-to-date policies, regular testing, screening for visitors, enough protective equipment and increased cleaning. Staff were seen using protective equipment correctly.
The home supported people to keep in touch with relatives and followed visiting guidance as restrictions eased. The service was inspected but not rated, so this visit does not give an overall quality rating.
COVID-19 policies
The home had detailed policies for managing COVID-19 risks and updated them when national guidance changed.
“Comprehensive policies and procedures were in place to manage any risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
Protective equipment
There was enough protective equipment and staff had been trained to use it. Inspectors saw staff using it correctly.
“Staff had received training on the use of PPE and we observed staff wearing it correctly during the inspection.” from the report
Contact with relatives
People were supported to stay in contact with relatives, and visiting arrangements followed the guidance in place at the time.
“People living in the home and their relatives were supported to maintain contact.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What measures are now in place to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures, and have staffing pressures affected people's care?
- 02What testing is currently offered to people living here, staff, essential carers and visitors?
- 03What are the current visiting arrangements, including any screening or vaccination requirements?
- 04How do you make sure staff continue to use protective equipment correctly?
- 05How often are touchpoints and other areas cleaned, and how is this checked?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 2022 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 Thomas Complex
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 October 2014.
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 South Tyneside
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 £1,140 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.