The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: St Pauls Care Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Long Mimms, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, HP2 5XW (01442) 229170

Provided and run by:
Westgate Healthcare Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

26 July 2017

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 26 July 2017 and was unannounced. At our last inspection on 25 June 2015, the service met the standards but needed improvement in some areas. St Paul’s Care Centre provides residential and nursing care for people including people with dementia for up to 88 elderly people. At the time of our inspection 88 people were living at the home. The care is provide over four floors all floors provide nursing care and two of these floors are nursing and dementia care.

There was a manager in post who had registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were supported to take their medicines by trained staff. However the documentation for medicines prescribes as and when needed (PRN) required improving.

People felt safe at St Pauls Care Centre. Staff had received training in how to safeguard people from abuse and knew how to report concerns, both internally and externally.

Where potential risks were identified there was involvement of other professionals when required to ensure people were safe.

Safe recruitment practices were followed to help ensure that all staff were suitably qualified and experienced. Arrangements were in place to ensure there were sufficient numbers of staff available at all times to meet people’s needs.

Staff received training and refresher updates relevant to their roles and had regular supervision meetings to discuss and review their development and performance.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to health and social care professionals when necessary. They were provided with a healthy balanced diet that met their individual needs.

Staff obtained people’s consent before providing personal care and support, which they did in a kind and compassionate way. Staff had developed positive and caring relationships with the people they cared for.

People were involved in the planning, delivery and reviews of the care and support provided. Confidentiality of information held about their medical and personal histories was securely maintained throughout the home.

People received personalised care and support that met their needs and took account of their preferences. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s background histories, preferences, routines and personal circumstances.

People were supported to take part in meaningful activities relevant to their needs.

Complaints were recorded and responded to in line with the service policy. People, relatives and staff were complimentary about the registered manager and how the home was run and operated.

Effective systems were in place to quality assure the services provided, manage risks and drive improvement.

25 June 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 25 June 2015 and was unannounced. The service provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 88 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. On the day of the inspection, there were 88 people living in the home.

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 were safe and were protected against possible risk of harm. Risks to individuals had been assessed and managed appropriately. There was a robust recruitment process in place. Sufficient numbers of experienced, trained and skilled staff were on duty to care for people safely. Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines, regularly, on time and as prescribed.

People received care and support from staff who were competent in their roles. Staff had received relevant training and support for their roles. They understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. They were aware of how to support people who lacked mental capacity. People’s nutritional and health care needs were met. They were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing and had access to and received support from other health care professionals.

The experiences of people who lived at the home were mainly positive. They were treated with kindness and compassion and they had been involved in the decisions about their care. However, people were not always treated with respect and their privacy and dignity was not always promoted.

People’s care needs had been assessed and reviewed regularly. They were supported to pursue their leisure activities both outside the home and to join in activities provided at the home. An effective complaints procedure was in place.

There were effective systems in operation to seek the views of people and other stakeholders in order to assess and monitor the quality of service provision.

16, 18 October 2013

During an inspection in response to concerns

We visited the home and spoke with 20 people who used the service, ten staff and four visitors to the home. We looked at the care plans and records for five of the people using the service. One person told us, "I get well looked after: they look after you," a second person told us, "I like it here. The staff are very helpful and I'm not kept waiting". A third person told us, "Without question, the staff are fantastic, hardworking, and sympathetic. I am contented here." A visitor told us, "I can't fault the home on anything and the staff keep me informed". Another visitor said, "there is not enough staff at mealtimes there are no activities at weekends".

We observed that most staff interacted positively with people in the home but we saw two occasions where people were not supported appropriately with moving and handling needs and that four out of five care plans we looked had did not have sufficient detail to ensure staff had guidance to meet people's needs effectively.

People who used the service were not always protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had not taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs on the days of our visit.

There was an effective complaints system available and comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately.

9 May 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this follow-up inspection early in the morning to check whether the service had made improvements to become compliant with the essential standards for respecting and involving people who use services and for staffing.

In our earlier inspection, in March 2013, we had found that people's privacy, dignity and independence were not always respected, and there were not enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

During this inspection we observed that people's privacy and dignity were respected. We spoke with five people who were awake at the time.

Two people said that they liked having a cup of tea in their bedroom. They said that the staff were very good.

One person said, "I woke up and staff gave me a shower. I like having a shower in the morning."

Another person said that they could choose when they got up, and added, "The staff do tell me if they think it is too early, such as 3:00 in the morning." The same person said that their bed was comfortable, that they enjoyed their meals, and had a good breakfast."

We observed that there were suitable numbers of staff available to meet people's needs in a timely way. The provider had increased the staffing by one care worker at night and during the day, which meant that staff were able to respond more promptly to people.

The provider had taken appropriate actions to achieve compliance with the essential standards of quality and safety.

14 March 2013

During an inspection in response to concerns

We undertook this inspection in response to concerns raised with us. We arrived at the home early in the morning. Staff did not answer the door in response to us pressing the bells. We pressed the door bell on each of the four floors. Once we accessed the building we found that there were no staff on the ground floor, some people living at the home were up and dressed and one person who lived at the home was walking around the corridors, others were in the lounge or still in bed.

During our visit we were told that people did not always have the door closed or were not always covered whilst they received personal care; we also observed care being provided in a manner which did not respect people's privacy and dignity.

18 October 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

The majority of people were satisfied with the care they received and found the staff to be friendly and helpful, although most people we spoke to thought there were not always enough staff on duty. One person told us, "It's alright living here, the staff are nice, sometimes there are enough staff but not always". Although another person told us, 'staff are pleasant but sometimes I'm left waiting for a long time, sometimes they come quickly' and that 'there is not much to do here'. Most other people were satisfied that there were things to do if they wanted to join in and one person told us, 'I have enough to do and I especially enjoy the tea parties'.

People told us how their privacy and dignity was respected and that staff always close the doors when they're helping with personal care. We observed the home to be visibly clean on the day, all the people appeared to have had their personal care needs met.

Overall we found that standards were being met although we found that the service did not consistently have the required number of staff on duty on some of the individual floors.