St Marys

St Marys provides residential care for up to 60 people. At the time of our inspection there were 51 people living at the home. The home is split in to two areas. The area of the home known as Constable was supporting 23 people living with dementia. The remaining rooms in the main building were known as Gainsborough and Waterhouse.

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

People benefited from a well-designed and maintained care home with accessible gardens. People were supported by a staff group who were committed to providing high quality care and support. Staff were visible and available to people. Staff demonstrated kindness and caring values in their approach to people.

Systems were in place to safeguard and mitigate risks of abuse and avoidable harm. People received their medicines when they needed them. Lessons were learned when things went wrong, and measures put in place to reduce the risks of them happening again. Staff were trained in infection control and used personal protective equipment where required.

Ongoing recruitment meant there were enough staff to ensure people were provided with the care and support required to meet their assessed needs and staff were recruited safely. Staff were trained to meet the needs of people. Where people required support with their dietary and health needs, this was assessed and systems in place to meet their needs.

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 care plans were person centred provided guidance for staff in how their assessed needs and preferences were met. People received care and support from staff who were caring and who respected their privacy and independence. People made decisions about their care and support, including how they preferred to be supported and their end-of-life decisions.

Systems were in place to monitor and assess the care provided, and where shortfalls were identified actions taken to make improvements. There was a complaints procedure in place and people’s views were used to improve the service. The service worked well with other professionals involved in people’s care.

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 27 January 2018).

Why we inspected

We undertook this inspection to check whether the service was continuing to provide a good rated service to people due to the age of the last rating.

The overall rating for the service remains good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for St Marys on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

St Marys provides residential care for up to 60 people. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. At the time of our inspection there were 39 people living at the home. The home is split in to two areas. The area of the home known as Constable was supporting 21 people living with dementia. The remaining rooms are in the main building.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 and their relatives were all happy with the service they received. Families told us they were informed and involved in decisions about their loved ones’ care. Our observations showed that staff were kind and caring in their approach and understood the needs of people they supported.

People received safe support with their medicines. Medicines were stored safely and the temperatures of these areas were checked regularly. If people needed to have their medicines crushed in order to be able to take them safely, this was done following advice from healthcare professionals and in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and making best interest decisions.

People’s rights were protected in line with the MCA. If people did not have capacity to make decisions, family were consulted and involved in making decisions about their care and support.

People received effective care that met their needs. Staff worked with community healthcare professionals such as speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, psychiatric nurses and GPs to ensure that people had the right health support in place.

People received their meals in accordance with their needs. People were able to be seated where they wished at mealtimes. Some chose to be in the dining room at tables and others chose to be in armchairs. Meal textures were modified for those people that required it in order to be able to eat safely.

All staff were positive about the training and support they received. Staff also received regular supervision as a means of monitoring their performance and development. All staff were positive about working in the home and told us morale was good amongst the team. We found a staff team that was motivated and involved and had good systems of communication in place.

Staff were responsive to people’s individual needs and preferences. A pre admission assessment was carried out which helped staff create person centred care plans. There was a range of activities in place for people to be involved in if they wished. This included visits from outside organisations and entertainers.

The home was very well led. The registered manager promoted a caring, positive, transparent and inclusive culture within the home. Staff and relatives were positive about the management of the home and felt able to raise any issues or concerns they had. Feedback was consistently seen as a way to develop the service. People were truly consulted and involved in the running of the home. There were quality assurance systems in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service provided.