CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Vincent House - Southsea
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks, staffing, recruitment, equipment, safeguarding and infection control were managed safely. They noted that some topical medicine records needed more information.
- Effective?
- Good
- This focused inspection did not cover the Effective key question. Its previous rating was carried forward into the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. Care plans recorded people's preferences, and people and relatives were involved in decisions about care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reflected people's needs, communication methods, interests and choices. Activities and visits had been adapted during the coronavirus pandemic.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team was described as open, approachable and supportive. Audits and other checks were used to identify concerns and make improvements.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and well-organised care, with some medicine records needing improvement.
This was a focused inspection on 27 November 2020. Inspectors spoke with people, staff and relatives, observed care, and checked care plans, medicine records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall, with Good ratings for Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, good infection control, personalised care and activities that reflected people's interests.
Some topical medicine records did not say clearly when creams should be applied or confirm that they had been applied as prescribed. The management team agreed to address this immediately.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement, with four breaches of regulations. Inspectors found improvements had been made and that the home was no longer in breach.
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, privacy, independence and personal choices.
“People were supported by staff who were kind, caring and who understood their likes, dislikes and preferences.” from the report
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and robust checks when staff were recruited.
“Recruitment procedures were robust, to help ensure only suitable staff were employed.” from the report
Infection control
The home had increased cleaning and staff training during the pandemic. Inspectors were assured that infection control arrangements met government guidance.
“They followed good infection control processes, which met government guidelines for care homes.” from the report
Personalised activities
The home employed staff to provide activities based on people's interests and wellbeing. Activities were adapted to take account of pandemic restrictions.
“There were meaningful activities available to people that were person centred.” from the report
Improved management
Inspectors found that the home had acted on the previous report's concerns. Management systems were being used to monitor quality and drive improvement.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Topical medicine records
needs fixingSome records for creams and lotions did not include when they should be applied or show whether they had been applied as prescribed. The management team agreed to address this immediately.
“Not all the TMAR's reviewed, contained information about when to apply topical creams or if they had been applied as prescribed.” from the report
Family communication
minorMost feedback about communication was positive, but one relative felt the home should provide more regular phone updates instead of relying mainly on emails.
“I find communication very poor. The staff could phone us with an update instead, just a phone call once a week would be nice.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to topical medicine records since the inspection?
- 02How do you check that creams and lotions are applied at the right time and recorded correctly?
- 03How will you keep relatives updated, especially if they prefer regular phone calls?
- 04How have you maintained activities and family contact when coronavirus restrictions affect visits?
- 05How do your current audits identify and act on accidents, incidents, complaints and medicine concerns?
This was a focused inspection covering Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 December 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.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind staff and good support with food and healthcare, but concerns about medicines, dignity, records and management.
This was an unannounced inspection on 17 and 22 January 2020. The inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
People said they felt safe and found staff kind. Staff had been recruited safely, there were enough staff deployed, and people received suitable food, drinks and healthcare. The effective question was rated Good.
However, medicines were not always managed safely. Risks and accidents were not always reviewed properly. Inspectors also saw some undignified interactions, care plans that were out of date, incomplete daily records and weak quality checks.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Requires Improvement. This was a deterioration from the previous overall rating of Good, published in March 2017.
Kind staff
People and relatives generally described staff as kind, helpful and caring. Inspectors also saw some positive and comforting interactions.
“Staff here are very nice and kind” from the report
Food and drink
People had enough food and drinks, a choice of meals and alternatives when wanted. The home also monitored weight and provided higher-calorie food where needed.
“There is always variety and a choice of two meals.” from the report
Healthcare support
Staff made timely referrals when people needed healthcare. Healthcare professionals said staff knew people's needs and followed their advice.
“Staff raise concerns appropriately, they seek help for everything.” from the report
Staff training and recruitment
Recruitment checks were completed, and staff received induction, training updates and supervision. Staff said they felt supported.
“New staff had an induction when they started and then ongoing updates when needed.” from the report
Activities and faith
People could join group activities, receive visits from local schoolchildren and attend a monthly religious service. They could also choose to stay in their rooms.
“There were activities for people to engage in if they wished.” from the report
Medicines and risk management
seriousSome medicines lacked clear instructions and records. Risks, accidents and incidents were not always reviewed, which left an increased risk of harm even though inspectors found no evidence that people had been harmed.
“People's medicines were not always managed safely.” from the report
Dignity and respect
seriousInspectors saw people being discussed or assisted without always being included, and some language used by staff was not dignified. People were not consistently involved in planning or reviewing their care.
“Whilst we could see no evidence of harm the provider had failed to make sure people were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Out-of-date care records
needs fixingCare plans did not always contain accurate guidance about people's needs, preferences and social activities. Daily records also missed important information, including bowel monitoring for one person.
“Guidance for staff to follow had not been reviewed and kept up to date in care records.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits were behind schedule and did not identify all the issues found during the inspection. Records were not always accurate, complete or kept up to date.
“Quality monitoring systems were not robust and had not identified the issues found during this inspection.” from the report
Required notifications
seriousSome safeguarding incidents and deprivation of liberty authorisations had not been notified to CQC as required. The provider sent the notifications after inspectors raised the issue.
“Failing to notify CQC of notifiable incidents without delay is a breach of Regulation 18 of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009.” from the report
Cleaning and staffing concerns
minorSome wooden fixtures and flooring were difficult to clean and had gathered dirt. Feedback about staffing was mixed, although staffing numbers had recently increased and more staff were being recruited.
“There are busy times here but there are enough staff” from the report
- 01What has changed in the way medicines, as-required medicines and topical creams are recorded and administered?
- 02How do you now make sure care plans and daily records are accurate and reviewed on time?
- 03What training or supervision has staff received about dignity, respectful language and involving people in their care?
- 04Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and what is the progress of the registered manager application?
- 05How are accidents, safeguarding incidents and quality audits now reviewed, and how do you make sure required notifications are sent to CQC promptly?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 February 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 Vincent House - Southsea
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 December 2010.
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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of Portsmouth
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 £1,020 to £1,240 a week. 38 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.