We carried out a review of the data available to us about St Peters 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 Peters Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
• Facilities were in place to use hand sanitiser on entering and leaving the home.
• Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) such as fluid repellent surgical masks, gloves, and apron when delivering personal care to all people.
• Staff had access to PPE and there were ‘PPE stations’ around the service to ensure PPE was at hand when needed.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
St Peters Home is a residential care home providing personal care to 32 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 38 people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were supported by staff who were caring, compassionate and knew them well. People and their loved ones were encouraged to plan their care with staff. Risks to people were managed with them and took into account their preferences. People were supported to maintain their relationships with loved ones, who told us they always felt welcome.
People were supported to take part in a range of activities, which were designed around their likes, hobbies and interests. Staff recognised when people were becoming distressed and responded quickly to reassure them. People could stay at the service at the end of their lives and staff worked with people and their loved ones to plan how they would liked to be cared for at that time.
The environment was designed to meet the needs of people living with dementia and included signage to help people find their way around. People could access information in a range of formats including their first language if appropriate.
People were supported to have food and drink they enjoyed, and which met their needs. When people became unwell staff contacted the relevant health professionals. Relatives told us they were kept up to date with any changes to their loved one’s health or 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.
There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and they were recruited safely. Staff had the training and support required to carry out their roles. People, relatives and staff told us the registered manager and deputy were approachable and supportive. A range of audits were completed to identify shortfalls and drive improvements.
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 30 June 2017).
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.
St Peters Home offers short and long term residential care for up to 38 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. The majority of bedrooms are on the ground floor and have en-suite bathrooms. A lift provides easy access for people to the first floor. The service is situated in Margate and has close public transport links. On the days of our inspection there were 28 people living in the service.
Rating at last inspection
At the last inspection the service was rated Good.
Rating at this inspection
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Why the service is rated Good
People told us they felt safe living at St Peter’s Home. Risks to people were assessed, managed and reviewed and action was taken by staff to keep people as safe as possible. People were protected from the risks of abuse and staff were confident to raise any concerns with the registered manager.
The registered manager followed safe recruitment processes to make sure staff employed were of good character and safe to work with people. There were sufficient numbers of staff on each shift and this was monitored and regularly reviewed. People received effective care from staff who had the knowledge and skills to carry out their roles.
Changes in people’s health were identified quickly and staff contacted people’s health care professionals for support, guidance and advice. People’s medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines in the ways their healthcare professional had prescribed. People were offered a balanced diet and food they liked.
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. Staff knew the importance of giving people choices and gaining people’s consent.
Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. People can only be deprived of their liberty so that they can receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. The application procedures for this in care homes and hospitals are called DoLS.
People were treated with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect by staff who knew them and their relatives well. People and their relatives were proactively involved in planning their care and support. Staff used innovative ways to make sure people were consulted, empowered, listened to and valued. People received care and support that was individual to them and their needs and preferences. Staff knew how to meet these needs and provide people with an enhanced sense of well-being.
The environment was supportive and enabling as there were lots of large print and dementia friendly directional signs around the home. These signs were mounted low enough to make sure people could see them easily and included words and pictures with contrasting coloured background. This reduced disorientation which may cause distress and frighten people.
People had plenty to do during the day were supported to follow their interests and take part in meaningful social activities designed for people living with dementia. Activities were innovative and, staff told us, ‘Created by people for people’. Staff found innovative and creative ways to enable people to live as full a life as possible. People’s independence was promoted. Staff supported people to maintain relationships with their families and friends.
People were actively encouraged to provide feedback. Complaints were investigated and action taken to address any concerns when needed. People and their relatives told us they had no complaints.
People, their relatives and staff felt the service was well-led. The management team encouraged an open and transparent culture. Regular and effective audits were completed. Action was taken when shortfalls were identified. Notifications had been submitted to CQC in line with guidance.
St Peters Home offers short and long term residential care for up to 38 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. The majority of bedrooms are on the ground floor and have en-suite bathrooms. A lift provides easy access for people to the first floor. The service is situated in Margate and has close public transport links. On the day of our inspection there were 33 people living in the service.
The service is run by the registered manager with a deputy manager. Both were present on the days of our inspection. The registered provider was also present during the inspection. The registered provider is a ‘registered person’ who has legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People told us they felt safe living at the service. Staff understood the importance of keeping people safe. Risks to people’s safety were identified and managed appropriately. People received their medicines safely and were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines. Staff knew how to protect people from the risk of abuse.
Recruitment processes were in place to check that staff were of good character. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff with the right mix of skills, knowledge and experience. There was a training programme in place to make sure staff had the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles.
People were confident in the support they received from staff. People and their relatives said they thought the staff were trained to be able to meet their needs or the needs of their loved ones. People were provided with a choice of healthy food and drinks which ensured that their nutritional needs were met. People’s physical health was monitored and people were supported to see healthcare professionals.
The registered manager and staff understood how the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 was applied to ensure decisions made for people without capacity were only made when this was in their best interests. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The registered manager was aware of a recent Supreme Court Judgement which widened and clarified the definition of a deprivation of liberty.
People and their relatives were happy with the standard of care at the service. People were involved with the planning of their care. People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs. Staff were kind, caring and compassionate and knew people well. People were encouraged to stay as independent as possible.
There was a complaints system and people knew how to complain. Views from people and their relatives were taken into account and acted on. The provider used concerns and complaints as a learning opportunity.
The design and layout of the building met people’s needs and was safe. The atmosphere was calm, happy and relaxed. The risk of social isolation was reduced because staff supported people to keep occupied with a range of meaningful activities which included gardening, singing and exercises.
The registered manager coached and mentored staff through regular one to one supervision. The registered manager and deputy manager worked with the staff each day to maintain oversight of the service. People and their relatives told us that the service was well run. Staff said that the service was well led, had an open culture and that they felt supported in their roles.
There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. The provider had submitted notifications to CQC in a timely manner and in line with CQC guidelines.
There were 34 people using the service at the time of our inspection. We observed how people reacted and responded to see if people indicated they were happy, bored, discontented, angry or sad.
We saw that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.
We spoke with some of the people using the service and we spoke with two relatives. People told us that they were happy with the care provided by the service. One commented, 'X seems really settled here. The staff have always been good'. We saw that the service worked closely with health and social care professionals to improve people's health and well-being.
We observed that the provider had provided an environment that was suitably designed and adequately maintained. The home was clean and free from unpleasant odours.
We found that there were enough skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.
Systems were in place to monitor the service that people received to ensure that the service was satisfactory and safe.
We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. This was because the people had complex needs which meant they were not all able to tell us their experiences. We spoke with some people and also observed the interactions between the people and the staff. We observed how people responded and reacted with the staff and we observed to see if people indicated they were happy, bored, discontented, angry or sad. Everyone we spoke with said that they were very happy living at St Peters Home.
People told us and records showed that they had the care and support they needed to remain well and healthy. People said they liked living at the service and felt safe. One person told us, 'It's a lovely place to be' and another commented "They are really helpful here. The food is lovely."
We saw that the provider had measures in place to help safeguard people from abuse. We saw that there were measures to check that people were reliably provided with the facilities and services they needed.
Staff engaged with people in a warm and positive way and supported people where needed. We saw evidence that staff had their work quality checked by supervisors on a regular basis.
People were involved in choosing the service and then involved in talking about their needs and wishes about their care and treatment. The important decisions people made about their care were recorded and followed by staff.
People told us that they were happy with their rooms and the facilities and that the home was clean.
One person said 'You cannot fault it here; they really look after us'.
A visiting carer told us that the home was clean and that staff made them feel welcome. They said that the staff kept them informed if their relative became unwell.