St Mary's House

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People continued to receive a good service. People described kind and caring staff who knew them well and supported them to remain as independent as possible. One person told us, “I am thankful everyday to be living here. The staff are so kind and caring.”

People said they felt safe living at the home. Systems and processes supported staff to provide care in a safe way and in line with legislation and guidance. Risks to people were identified and managed. People received their medicines safely and there were enough suitable staff to care for people safely.

People said they enjoyed the food at St Mary’s House and their needs and choices were respected. People were receiving the support they needed to have enough to eat and drink. Staff ensured that people were able to access health care services when they needed them.

Staff received the training and support they needed to care for people and demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs and preferences. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People’s dignity and privacy was respected, and staff supported people to express their views and to be involved in making decisions. Staff knew people well and provided care in a personalised way that was responsive to their needs. People were supported to plan for care at the end of life. People knew how to complain and were confident that their views would be listened to.

There was clear leadership and staff understood their roles. Communication systems supported effective team work. People and staff spoke highly of the management of the home. There were effective systems to monitor the quality of the service and the registered manager retained oversight. There was a positive culture that supported openness and learning from mistakes.

Staff had developed close relationships with people and there was a homely atmosphere. One person told us, “Living here, I am as happy as I have ever been in my life.”

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 17 August 2018).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

The home had a registered manager in post. They were not present on the day of the inspection but the provider’s Director of Care was at the home. 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 the last inspection on 9 April 2015 we identified some areas of practice that were not consistently safe. At this inspection we found that these concerns had been addressed and were now meeting the required standards. Staff were clear about their responsibilities with regard to keeping people safe and risks were identified, assessed and managed effectively.

People were receiving their medicines and there were enough staff on duty to care for people safely. One person told us, “I feel safe all the time, the carers look after me.” A relative said, “I know I can leave my dad here and not worry at all, I have no concerns for his welfare”.

Staff were receiving the training and support they needed to carry out their roles effectively. People had confidence in the skills of the staff and felt they were well trained. One person said, “They always seem to be training for something, so I’m very happy they can look after me”. Staff had a clear understanding of their responsibilities with regard to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2015 and sought consent from people before providing care. People were supported to access the health and care services they needed.

People were receiving the food and drink they needed. They spoke very highly of the standard of the food at St Mary’s House. One person said, “Food is very good, of top hotel standard,” another person said, “The food is excellent, (the chef) could leave and open her own restaurant.”

People and their relatives told us they were very happy with the care they received. They spoke highly of the staff, describing positive relationships and a kind and caring approach. One person said, “I love the staff, they look after me well, and are interested in what I say.” Staff treated people with respect and maintained their privacy and dignity. People told us they had been involved in planning their care and felt that their views were listened to.

There was a range of activities organised on a daily basis and people told us that they enjoyed participating. Staff encouraged and supported people to follow their interests and to maintain relationships that were important to them. One person had given up art but staff persuaded them to try taking it up again and they were participating in the art class regularly. They told us they, “Really love the class.” There was a complaints system and people knew how to raise any concerns. They said they would feel comfortable to do so but had not needed to do so.

People, relatives and staff spoke highly of the management of the home. One person said, “I cannot think of anything that could be improved, they do an excellent job, they do everything well.” A relative said, “I honestly can’t praise it enough. The staff respect each other and work as a team all the time.” A staff member said, “I think it’s very well led. I wouldn’t have stayed here so long if I thought differently.” There were effective governance systems to provide oversight, to monitor the quality of the care and to drive improvements. The visions and values of the service were embedded within practice and staff had developed positive links within the local community.

We saw that people experienced safe and effective care based on detailed care plans and risk assessments that met individual needs.

People using the service were protected from abuse as they were supported by a staff team who had appropriate knowledge and training in safeguarding adults. People told us that if they had any concerns they would report them to the manager.

Staff we spoke with and records we reviewed, demonstrated that staff were suitably experienced and skilled to support people living in the home. A staff member told us that they 'enjoy the work' and that the manager is 'helpful and understanding'.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service.

The people we spoke with were happy living at St Mary's House. hey told us that they were able to make choices about the care they received, and that staff looked after them well. One person said "It's very good here", and another said "I always say I feel content here". The visitor we spoke with said that their relative received good care at the home.

The staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the needs of the people who lived at the home, and received the training and support they needed. They prioritised the privacy and dignity of people, and supported people to be independent.

We spent time observing the care provided to people living in the home. We saw that staff had a good rapport with people, and spent time talking and listening to them. Staff understood people's needs well. There was a friendly, happy atmosphere in the home.

The manager said that the house had been refurbished over the last two years. The house and people's rooms were clean and well-presented. There were effective systems for assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision in place.