The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

St Anne's Residential Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Clifton, Banbury, Oxfordshire, OX15 0PA (01869) 338295

Provided and run by:
Mr Prashant Brahmbhatt

All Inspections

18 April 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection on 18 April 2018.

St Anne's Residential Care Home is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

St Anne's Residential Care Home accommodates up to 22 people in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection there were 20 people using the service.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Why the service is rated Good.

People continued to be safe in the service. Risks to people were assessed and there were plans in place to manage those risks. People received their medicines safely. There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs.

People were supported by an effective service that ensured staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the procedures in the service supported this practice. People received food and drink to meet their dietary needs.

Staff continued to support people in a caring way, showing kindness and compassion. People were treated with dignity and their privacy was respected. People were involved in their care.

The service continued to be responsive to people's needs and valued them as unique individuals. People enjoyed a range of activities that met their individual needs.

The service continued to be well-led. The registered manager and wider management team promoted a person-centred culture that was open and honest. People, relatives and staff were valued and listened to. There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the service. Systems included gaining feedback from people and relatives about the quality of the service and drive improvements.

9 November 2015

During a routine inspection

We inspected this service on 9 November 2015. This was an unannounced inspection

St Anne’s Residential Care Home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 22 people who require personal care. At the time of the inspection there were 21 people living at the service.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People, their relatives and staff were highly complimentary about the service, the management and staff team.

People said they felt safe and knew who to speak with if they felt unsafe. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to protect people from abuse and explained the procedure they would follow if they suspected abuse had occurred. Staff were supported to do this by having regular supervision, team meetings and training to help them meet the needs of the people they were supporting. There was sufficient numbers of staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. Staff had received the necessary recruitment checks before commencing work with the service.

People received support from staff with their medicines to ensure they were managed safely. Staff administered and recorded medicines in line with the service’s medicines policy. However, medicines were not stored safely at all times and we have made a recommendation in the report.

People had a range of individualised risk assessments in place to keep them safe and to help them maintain their independence. Staff followed guidance in care plans and risk assessments to ensure people were safe and their needs were met. Where required, people were referred to a range of other professionals.

People were cared for by staff that had the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care. Staff spoke of their satisfaction in carrying out a job they enjoyed and the support they experienced from management.

Staff were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where people were not able to make specific decisions, care records showed who had legal powers to make important decisions on their behalf. The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were complimentary about the food and were given choice and variety. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services.

People described their relationship with staff very positively. People felt valued as individuals and told us staff went over and above their roles to ensure they got the care they required. People enjoyed living at the service and told us it felt like home.

Relatives spoke highly of the care people received. Relatives were pleased with the person centred support and assured that people were well cared for by experienced and caring staff. Staff knew the people they cared for and what was important to them. Staff appreciated peoples unique life histories and understood how these could influence the way people wanted to be cared for. People's choices and wishes were respected and recorded in their care records. Staff offered support in a way that promoted people’s independence. People took part in social activities.

People and their relatives said they knew how to make a complaint and felt comfortable to do this. Staff knew how to handle complaints which was in line with the service’s complaints policy.

People, their relatives, staff and other professionals spoke highly of the management team. Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the service and ensure the safety of people in the service and people who worked there.

10 September 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our visit there were 22 people who used the service and five care workers were on duty.

We spoke with eight people who used the service and two relatives. Everyone we spoke with spoke highly of the service. One person said "the care staff are wonderful, very respectful". Another said "it is not home but it is as good". One person's relative said "I am always talking to my mother's key worker. We discuss her care and what is best for her".

We spoke with five care workers who all told us they enjoyed working at the home. One said "I love this job. Helping these people is so rewarding". Another said "I like it here, we are well supported to do our job and there is lots of training".

We looked at people's care plans and found them well maintained and up to date. Risks were managed and regularly reviewed. This showed us that people's care was appropriate and effectively managed. We also saw that people were respected and involved in their care.

We saw that people were safe from the risk of abuse and that medicines were managed appropriately. We also saw that the provider monitored the quality of service it provided and responded to peoples' needs and preferences.

24 January 2013

During a routine inspection

There were 20 people at the service at the time of the inspection. We spoke to nine people, made observations and reviewed documents including three care plans, three daily records and a detailed risk assessment. The people we talked to were positive about the service, including the home itself and the staff in particular: "This is a lovely place. People are very good." Another person told us: "I like it here." We asked why and were told "The staff." Other comments about the staff included: "They're very good" and "That lady is very good."

We observed examples of good practice, including choices being offered to people.

Our interviews with the manager and staff, allied to a review of documents, indicated that staff had suitable induction, further training and regular supervision. This support helped to enable staff to meet peoples' needs. We observed that staff communicated effectively with people.

The service strived to achieve the best outcomes for people, and to develop, as our interview with the registered provider confirmed. The service welcomed input from families who were involved in care planning and whose views on the care provided were sought.