CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at St Winefrides Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Staffing levels, recruitment, risk management, safeguarding, infection control and medicines systems were found to be suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, and staff received training, supervision and appraisals. People were supported with food, drink, healthcare, oral care and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives gave very positive feedback. Inspectors observed kind and compassionate interactions and found that privacy, dignity, equality and independence were respected.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Care plans and activities were exceptionally personalised. The home offered varied activities, supported relationships and communication, and responded creatively to people's emotional and physical needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager had created an open and positive culture. Audits, staff feedback, care reviews and partnership working were used to monitor and improve care.
What inspectors found, March 2020
St Winefrides Residential Home was rated Good overall; inspectors found exceptionally personalised care, with Responsive rated Outstanding.
This was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection on 23 January 2020. One inspector visited for one day, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported by trained staff. Risks and medicines were managed, people received help with food, drink and healthcare, and the home respected people's choices, privacy and independence.
The strongest area was Responsive, rated Outstanding. Inspectors saw highly personalised care, creative activities and strong efforts to reduce loneliness. The overall rating stayed Good, as did Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. Responsive improved from Good at the previous inspection.
Personalised care
Staff knew people well and tailored care to their physical, mental and emotional needs. Weekly wellbeing meetings helped staff share ideas and respond to what mattered to each person.
“People received exceptionally high-quality person-centred care that exceeded their expectations.” from the report
Activities and relationships
Activities were varied and linked to people's interests. The home supported friendships, family contact, community involvement and activities designed to reduce social isolation.
“Activities were exceptionally person centred with a strong focus on improving people's well-being and reducing social isolation.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw friendly and compassionate interactions. Staff supported people's dignity, privacy, choices and independence.
“Staff demonstrated a kind and compassionate, can-do attitude.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely. Staff were trained and checked as competent to give medicines, and medicines records were audited.
“We observed a member of staff administering medication safely with great care and attention to people.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you continue the weekly wellbeing meetings and use what is discussed to update my relative's care?
- 02How are activities matched to my relative's interests, abilities and communication needs?
- 03How will you involve my relative and our family in care plan reviews and decisions about care?
- 04What arrangements would be made to discuss and record my relative's wishes for end of life care if their situation changed?
- 05How do you use staffing assessments and incident reviews to make sure enough staff are available at the times people need the most support?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, the premises and the care provided, carried out over one day by one inspector; no one was receiving end of life care at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 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.
What inspectors found, February 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with strong leadership.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 16 January 2017. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, managers and staff. They also observed care and activities, and checked care plans, medicines, staffing, training, complaints and quality checks.
The inspectors found that people were safe and that there were enough staff. Medicines were managed safely. Staff understood safeguarding and mental capacity rules. People received enough food and drink, healthcare support and care from trained staff.
Staff were described as kind, respectful and familiar with people's needs. Care plans recorded people's preferences and support needs. Activities were based on people's interests, and complaints were handled according to the provider's policy.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found the home was meeting the relevant requirements at the time of this inspection.
Safe staffing
The inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Staffing levels were reviewed when people's health or dependency changed.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their privacy, dignity and choices. Relatives also spoke highly of the care.
“We observed that people were treated with dignity and respect and that people had the privacy they needed.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans contained detailed information about people's likes, dislikes, preferences and care needs. Activities were adapted to people's interests and choices.
“Care plans provided staff with detailed and comprehensive information about people, their likes, dislikes, preferences and how they wanted to be cared for.” from the report
Strong leadership
The managers were visible and supportive. Regular audits, meetings and surveys were used to review and improve the service.
“There was an open, positive culture within the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are care plans reviewed each month, and how will my relative and family be involved in those reviews?
- 02How do you review staffing levels after a fall or a change in someone's health or dependency?
- 03What activities are currently available for people with different interests, and how do you support someone who does not want to join in?
- 04How are medicines checked, and how do you make sure staff remain competent to administer them?
- 05How are any concerns or complaints recorded, investigated and followed up?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the overall service, including all five key questions; the previous inspection was on 21 June 2013. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 February 2017 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 Winefrides Residential Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at St Winefrides Residential Home →
- February 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at St Winefrides Residential Home →
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 February 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West 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 £1,020 to £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.