CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Thomas House (St Helens) Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, social distancing, hygiene, admissions and outbreak management.
- 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?
- Requires improvement
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 3 March 2021. It focused on how the home prevented and managed coronavirus infection, rather than reviewing all areas of care.
Inspectors found good arrangements for visits, testing, vaccination, social distancing and the use of protective equipment. They were assured that the home had appropriate measures for admissions, hygiene and managing possible outbreaks.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rated judgement for all five areas of care.
Keeping in touch
The home offered several ways for people to see and speak with relatives, including window visits, telephone calls and video calls.
“Visitors were able to spend time seeing and speaking with loved ones in various ways such as window visits, telephone calls and video viewing.” from the report
Protective equipment
Inspectors saw suitable places for staff and visitors to put on and remove PPE safely. Stocks were maintained and staff used PPE correctly.
“Stocks of the right standard of personal protective equipment (PPE) were well-maintained and staff used and disposed of it correctly.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
Staff were tested three times a week and residents were offered monthly testing if they were able and willing. The home also had a vaccination programme and plans for people who declined vaccination.
“COVID-19 testing was undertaken three times weekly for staff and monthly for residents who were able and willing.” from the report
Building and hygiene
The layout had been changed to support social distancing, and people could choose to eat in their own rooms.
“The building had been adapted to ensure good practices of infection prevention and control and maintain social distancing as much as possible.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now, and how have they changed since the inspection on 3 March 2021?
- 02How can relatives visit and keep in touch if there is an infection outbreak or other restriction?
- 03How often are staff and residents tested now, and what happens if someone has a positive result?
- 04How does the home manage vaccinations for people who are unable or unwilling to have them?
- 05What are the home's current ratings for caring, effective care, responsiveness and leadership, which this inspection did not assess?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; it did not rate the overall service or the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 March 2021 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, November 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the home’s leadership required improvement.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 27 September 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and provider representatives. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, complaints, policies and other records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable care plans, kind staff and a range of activities. People said they felt safe and were treated with respect.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The registered manager had recently left, and the home was recruiting a replacement. Some documents contained out-of-date or inconsistent information. The overall rating remained Good, but the leadership rating had fallen from Good.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found medicines were ordered, stored, given and recorded safely. Staff who administered medicines had current training and competency checks.
“People's medicines were ordered, stored, administered and returned in accordance with best practice guidelines.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, patience and dignity. People were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“Staff were observed to be kind, caring and patient throughout our inspection visit.” from the report
Personalised care planning
Care plans contained detailed guidance about people's individual needs, choices and communication. They were reviewed and updated when people's needs changed.
“Care plans were specific to each person and held sufficient detail and guidance for staff to follow to fully understand and meet each person's individual needs and choices.” from the report
Activities and choice
People could choose from different activities and ways to spend their time. Inspectors saw evidence of activities including music, celebrations, entertainers and trips.
“During our visit people engaged in activities of their choice.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThe previous registered manager had left and a replacement was being recruited. CQC limited the well-led rating to Requires Improvement because no registered manager was in post.
“The registered manager had recently left the home.” from the report
Out-of-date and inconsistent documents
needs fixingThe Statement of Purpose included information about a previous regulator. The complaints procedure was also described differently in different documents, which inspectors said could confuse people.
“The Statement of Purpose held out of date information including details about a previous regulator before the CQC.” from the report
DBS checks not complete before induction
needs fixingTwo new staff had begun induction and shadow shifts before full DBS checks were in place. The provider assured inspectors they would not work alone until a clear DBS was available.
“Two new staff members had commenced their induction and shadow shifts without a full DBS in place.” from the report
- 01Is there now a registered manager in post, and when did they register with CQC?
- 02Have the Statement of Purpose and complaints documents been updated so that all information is accurate and consistent?
- 03How does the home make sure new staff have the required DBS checks before they start working alone?
- 04How are the home’s quality audits and action plans checked by the provider?
- 05What activities are currently available, and how are residents’ individual choices included?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the home’s premises and care both looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 November 2018 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 Thomas House (St Helens) Limited
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Thomas House (St Helens) Limited →
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Thomas House (St Helens) Limited →
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 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 19 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.