We carried out a review of the data available to us about St Joseph's Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about St Joseph's Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ The service was receiving professional visitors with robust infection control procedures in place. Visitors were health screened and had their temperatures checked by on arrival. Handwashing facilities and alcohol gel were made available and all visitors were required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE).
¿ Staff were provided with a designated preparation area on arrival to and departure from the service. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) donning and doffing stations were available throughout the building with guidance and signs displayed. Staff were seen to be adhering to the PPE guidance and protective measures in place.
¿ The service was engaged in the routine testing scheme, with all staff and people living at the service being tested for COVID-19 on a regular basis.
¿ The provider had developed a robust package of policies, procedures and guidance which had been implemented at the service.
St Joseph’s Care Home is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 48 people aged 65 and over. some of who may be living with dementia. At the time of this inspection 46 people were living at the service.
St Joseph’s Care Home accommodates people across one building, with a dedicated area for people living with dementia.
People's experience of using this service
People were protected from avoidable harm and abuse by staff. Risks to people's safety had been identified and assessed. Staff were aware of risks to people’s health and wellbeing and worked proactively to keep them safe. People received their prescribed medicines safely and had their medicines reviewed regularly. Cleanliness and hygiene were maintained throughout the home, which reduced the risk of infection. Staff followed the required standards of food safety and hygiene, when preparing, serving and handling food.
Staff had the required skills to meet people’s needs effectively, which led to good outcomes for people’s care and support and promoted their quality of life. Staff received regular appraisal and supervision of their skills and development. People lived in a homely, clean and appropriately adapted environment that supported their needs. The registered manager had worked effectively with local organisations, health and social care professionals and multi-disciplinary teams.
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 were supported by a staff group who were kind and caring to deliver high quality, personalised care. People and staff had developed meaningful relationships that enabled staff to provide care that met people’s preferences.
People received person-centred support that was responsive to their needs. Staff were aware of how to support people and the risks to their health and wellbeing. People were supported to maintain and develop relationships that mattered to them and protected them from the risk of social isolation and loneliness. People who were at the end of their lives experienced a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death. People were confident their concerns and complaints would be listened to and responded to robustly.
The service was led by a management team who were respected by staff and people, and who led by example. Governance systems in the service supported the quality of care people received and improvement plans continually sought ways to develop the service further. The management team had identified areas for improvement prior to this inspection and were working towards embedding these areas for development.
Rating at the last inspection
At the last inspection on 18 January 2017 the service was rated Good (report published 10 February 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We did not identify any concerns at this inspection. We will therefore aim to re-inspect this service within the published time scale for services rated good. We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.
We found that when people’s needs changed this had not always been documented to reflect the changes or to follow best practice.
People felt safe living at St Joseph’s Care Home. Staff understood how to keep people safe and risks to people's safety and well-being were identified and managed. The home was calm and people's needs were met in a timely manner by sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff. The provider operated safe recruitment processes which helped to ensure that staff employed to provide care and support for people were fit to do so. People's medicines were managed safely.
Staff received regular one to one supervision from a member of the management team which made them feel supported and valued. People received support they needed to eat and drink sufficient quantities and their health needs were well catered for with appropriate referrals made to external health professionals when needed.
People, relative’s and other professionals complimented the staff team for being kind and caring. Staffs were knowledgeable about individuals' care, support needs and preferences. People had been involved in the planning of their care where they were able. Visitors to the home were encouraged at any time of the day.
People had opportunities to be involved in activities and hobbies both inside and out of the home. They were confident to raise anything that concerned them with staff or management and were satisfied that they would be listened to.
There was an open and respectful culture in the home and relatives and staff were comfortable to speak with the registered manager if they had a concern. The provider had arrangements to regularly monitor health and safety and the quality of the care and support provided for people who used the service.
This inspection was carried out on 23 July 2015 and was unannounced.
St Joseph’s Care Home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 53 older people. This includes people who are living with dementia or a physical disability. There were 48 people living at the home when we inspected.
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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
When we last inspected the service on 29 September 2014 we found them to not be meeting the required standards in relation to the administration of people’s daily records and guidance for staff about people’s behaviour to enable them to better meet their individual needs. At this inspection we found that they had met the required standards.
Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are put in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves or others. At the time of the inspection applications had been made to the local authority in relation to people who lived at the service and were pending an outcome. Staff were fully aware of their role in relation to MCA and DoLS and how people were at risk of being deprived of their liberty.
People received care that met their individually assessed needs and preferences.
People received their medicines safely and had regular access to health care professionals. People received support where required.
People were provided with a good choice of food and drink and staff had access to accurate and up to date information to help them meet people’s needs.
People felt safe and staff were knowledgeable about how to protect people from the risk of abuse and other areas where they may have been assessed as being at risk. Falls, accidents and incidents were monitored to ensure the appropriate action had been taken. There were regular quality assurance checks carried out to assess and improve the quality of the service.
Staff were kind and people appreciated the positive relationships they had with staff. This was also true for relatives. People were complimentary about the staff providing the service. Choices were given to people at all times. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and all confidential information about them was held securely.
Care plans were personalised and included information about people’s history and interests. Staff were knowledgeable about how to manage people’s individual needs and assisted people to take part in daily activities.
The service was well led by a manager who promoted a fair an open culture. They encouraged staff to take responsibility and supported their professional development. The manager also had a support structure in place from area managers. There were regular supervisions and appraisals to support staff.
We set out to answer our five questions in relation to our concerns; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with people using the service, the staff supporting them and looking at records.
We found that the home was not meeting the two outcomes we inspected.
If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service caring?
We found that the staff were interacting and engaging with people in a caring and kind way. We saw that care had been taken with people's appearance to prepare them for the day and that staff treated them in a manner that promoted their dignity and respected their privacy.
Is the service safe?
We found that people who lived in the Kingfisher unit of the home were not always protected from avoidable harm. This is because the home did not have effective systems in place to capture and respond to incidents that put the people and staff at risk. However, we found that the people in the rest of the home were safe.
The staffing levels in the Kingfisher unit were not sufficient to meet the fast changing needs of the people who lived there, many of whom had complex needs.
Is the service effective?
We found that one of the two staff members on duty to care for the people in Kingfisher unit had a poor command of the English language. We were unable to communicate effectively with them. We found that they were an agency staff who had not worked at the care home before.. We observed that this staff member did not know the peoples' names. They had not been given time to read the people's care plans and therefore could not have known and understood their needs.
The people in the rest of the home were cared for by a sufficient number of qualified and suitable staff.
Is the service responsive?
We found that the home responded to the needs of most of the people who lived there, except for people who lived in the Kingfisher unit who did not always have their needs recognised and responded to in timely manner.
Care plans were reviewed and updated. However vital information pertaining to the peoples' behaviours were not included when planning their care and in deciding on the most appropriate care for them.
Is the service well led?
We found that the Kingfisher unit of the home was not managed in an open and transparent manner. The members of the management staff told us that they were not aware of the incidents that had occurred in the unit that could have caused harm to the people.
There were no systems in place to escalate staffs' concerns about the people and therefore there was no management plan in place to protect the people and the staff who worked in the unit.
By the end of the inspection the provider had responded positively to our concerns and had increased the staffing levels on the Kingfisher unit.
We looked at how the people were respected and involved in the running of the home, how their health and welfare was promoted, how they were kept safe, if there was enough trained staff to care for them and how the home facilitated people making complaints. We found that the home was compliant with all the areas we looked at.
We identified that people were asked for their views on how the service was being run and how they wished to spend their time.
People were aware of the care plans in place to ensure staff provided them with the care and support they needed.
We observed that staff provided support for people, who were living with dementia, in a way that promoted positive signs of well-being and reassurance.
We noted that there were appropriate systems in place to ensure staff received the training they needed and the quality and safety of the service provided was kept under review.