CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at St Helens
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and managing infection. They found suitable arrangements for PPE, testing, shielding, social distancing, hygiene and admissions.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control, PPE, testing and contact with relatives.
Inspectors visited on 26 November 2020. The visit was announced and formed part of a national review of infection prevention and control in care homes.
They found the home had effective infection control arrangements. The home was clean and well maintained. Staff had suitable personal protective equipment, and stock levels were managed.
Testing was in place for residents and staff. Staff were allocated to particular units to reduce movement between units. Relatives were supported to keep in contact through Skype visits and a visiting pod.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or a standard rating for the five areas of care.
Clean environment
The home was described as clean, hygienic and well maintained as part of its infection control arrangements.
“the environment was clean, hygienic and well-maintained. The staff were provided with the necessary personal protective equipment (PPE)” from the report
PPE arrangements
Staff had the PPE they needed, stock levels were managed, and staff were seen wearing suitable PPE during the visit.
“The staff were provided with the necessary personal protective equipment (PPE), PPE stock levels were well managed” from the report
Testing and support
Regular testing was in place for residents and staff. The home had identified people at higher risk and put support measures in place.
“Regular testing was in place for people living at the home and staff who worked there.” from the report
Reduced staff movement
Staff were allocated to particular units, which reduced movement between the four units.
“Consistent staff were allocated to specific 'units', meaning there was less cross over of staff across the four units within the home.” from the report
Family contact
Relatives were supported to maintain contact through Skype visits, while a visiting pod was being completed for socially distanced visits.
“Relatives were supported to maintain regular contact with people who lived at the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are infection prevention and control arrangements working now?
- 02How do you manage PPE stocks and make sure staff wear PPE correctly?
- 03How often are residents and staff tested, and what happens when a test is positive?
- 04How do you limit staff movement between units?
- 05How can relatives visit or keep in contact with residents now?
This was an announced thematic review of infection prevention and control; it inspected Safe but did not rate the service or assess the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 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, April 2019
Stocks Hall Care Home - St Helens: Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some delays in responding to requests.
This was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, managers and staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, complaints, incidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found a calm and friendly atmosphere, kind staff, personalised care, safe medicines and enough staff overall.
There were some issues to keep under review. Some people said staff did not always respond quickly to requests. The home was also changing its electronic care system, and some information was still being recorded on paper.
Kind and familiar care
Inspectors saw warm relationships between staff and people. Relatives and people spoke positively about the caring approach.
“Staff were continuously seen to be kind and compassionate towards people and it was obvious they had built strong familiar relationships with people” from the report
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding, risks were reviewed, and medicines were managed safely.
“People were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Legal requirements were met.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans contained detailed information about people's needs, choices and preferences. People were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“People received person-centred care that was based on their individual needs.” from the report
Good food and activities
People were offered choices of food and drinks and received support at mealtimes. Activities included games, reading sessions and trips out.
“Staff were observed during meal times to support people in an unrushed and calm manner” from the report
Quality checks
Managers and the provider used audits and checks to monitor the service. They also reviewed falls and pressure wounds for patterns.
“Quality assurance systems were in place and used effectively to monitor key aspects of the service.” from the report
Delays with requests
needs fixingAlthough inspectors found enough staff overall, some people said staff did not always respond to requests for support quickly. The manager said this would be addressed.
“Some people told us that whilst there were enough staff on duty, they did not always respond requests for support in a timely manner.” from the report
Electronic records being changed
needs fixingThe home had recently moved to a different electronic care system. Some information, including food and drink intake, could not yet be recorded accurately, so paper records were being used.
“The manager had identified that some aspects of the system were not allowing staff to record all required information accurately, such as food and drink intake.” from the report
Nurse recruitment
needs fixingThe home was recruiting permanent nurses because some had recently left. Agency nurses were being used to cover the shortfall.
“Agency nurses were being used to cover shortfalls.” from the report
New management arrangements
minorAn interim manager had only been in post for a few weeks. Most staff felt supported, but the manager was still getting to know staff and building reassurance.
“The current manager had only been in post a few weeks and was still in the process of getting to know staff.” from the report
- 01How quickly do staff usually respond when someone asks for help, and how are delays monitored?
- 02Is the new electronic care system now recording food, drink and other required information accurately?
- 03Have all permanent nurse vacancies been filled, and how often are agency nurses still being used?
- 04How are staff supported during the current management arrangements?
- 05How will you use the activities tracker and resident of the day scheme to improve care?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises, care and management of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 April 2019 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 Helens
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
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.
- 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 St. Helens
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 £1,260 a week. 92 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.