You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 21 February 2017

We undertook an inspection of St Joseph’s - Manchester on 26 and 27 October 2016. The first day of inspection was unannounced which meant the provider did not know we were coming.

We last carried out an inspection at St Joseph’s - Manchester on 15 August 2014. We found the service was fully complaint in all five standards we inspected at that time and was meeting legal requirements.

St Joseph’s - Manchester provides nursing and personal care and accommodation for up to 53 older people and people living with dementia. There were 48 people living at St Joseph’s – Manchester at the time of our inspection. St Joseph’s - Manchester is one of eight homes in England run by the Little Sisters of the Poor congregation. Jeanne Jugan is the founder and first Little Sister of the Poor. The homes’ vision is to continue the inspiration of Jeanne Jugan in today’s world, to improve care for the elderly and to promote the elderly’s role in society. The Little Sisters of the Poor congregation adhere at all times to the philosophy and ethics of the Catholic Church.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of this inspection. 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.

Staff were confident in describing the different kinds of abuse and the signs and symptoms that would suggest a person they supported might be at risk of abuse. They knew what action to take to safeguard people from harm.A system was in place to identify and assess the risks associated with providing care and support. People’s support plans and risk assessments contained personalised information about an individual’s needs and provided guidance for staff as to the support people needed.

The service had an excellent relationship with a local GP practice and one of these GP’s spent one morning a week in the home undertaking appointments or reviews of people’s medicines. This proactive approach meant that people’s medicines were reviewed in a timely manner and people were treated quickly when necessary or when the service identified the start of any potential illnesses.

People who used the service received safe care and support from a trained and skilled team of staff. The induction of new staff and ongoing training of others was robust and staff told us they received regular support from the registered manager and line managers.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People living at the home, their relatives and other healthcare professionals involved with the service said that the support staff were caring. On the day of our visits we saw people looked well cared for. There was a relaxed atmosphere in the home. The people we spoke with who were using the service, and visiting relatives, told us they were happy with the care provided.

People’s care plans contained information about their likes, dislikes and personal preferences and were person-centred. They contained details about how people liked to be supported in aspects of their care. We received one negative comment about the home not acting upon information provided by a person using the service with regards to a food intolerance.

During our visit we saw examples of staff treating people with respect and dignity. Staff promoted people’s independence by giving them choices and allowing autonomy when it was safe to do so. People using the service and their relatives were consulted and involved in assessments, care planning and the development of the service.

There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s support needs and to provide activities for them. People’s access to activities was very good; we saw that people were supported to get out and about on organised trips. People were encouraged to maintain relationships that were important to them and the service actively involved and welcomed family members to events held at the home.

We saw and people told us that their faith was very important to them and the home supported people to maintain their faith. This was helped by an on site chapel which was accessible to all.

Staff told us that they felt supported by the registered manager and their line managers. Formal supervisions and annual appraisals took place and staff we spoke with felt valued and listened to. Regular team meetings were also held and staff were able to raise any issues or concerns at these meetings. Staff were proud to work at the home.

The service had effective systems of quality assurance in place, which measured the outcomes of service provision. Systems were in place which continuously assessed and monitored the quality of the service, including obtaining feedback from people who used the service and their relatives.

Inspection areas



Updated 21 February 2017

The service was safe.

Staff we spoke with knew how to keep people safe from abuse and could outline what action they would take if they suspected abuse.

The provider had systems in place to manage risks, safeguarding concerns and medicines which ensured people’s safety.

There were sufficient numbers of staff available at all times to meet the needs of people who used the service.



Updated 21 February 2017

The service was effective.

The service was meeting the legal requirements relating to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were involved in decisions about their care and support.

Staff were trained appropriately to care for and support people who used the service.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to a range of healthcare services including weekly GP sessions held in the home.



Updated 21 February 2017

The service was caring.

People and their relatives told us that staff were very caring. People’s rights to privacy, dignity and respect were upheld.

Staff listened to the views of people using the service. They knew people well as individuals and could describe their likes, dislikes and preferences.

People were supported to maintain important relationships. There were no restrictions in place with regards to visitors and people told us they were made to feel welcome.



Updated 21 February 2017

The service was responsive.

People had a full assessment of their needs prior to being admitted to the home.

People had access to and were supported to take part in a wide range of activities based upon their personal preferences. People had their religious and spiritual needs met by the home.

People and their relatives were aware of how to complain although those we spoke with had never needed to. The service responded to concerns and complaints as per their company policy.



Updated 21 February 2017

The service was well led.

People, relatives and staff spoke highly of the registered manager. Management and staff had a good understanding of their responsibilities and worked well together as a team.

Staff felt involved, fully supported and listened to. They received good support from management.

The systems and mechanisms in place to audit and monitor the service were robust. The registered manager had an overarching view of the quality of the service provided, having assistance from other members of the management team.