The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: St George's Park

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

School Street, St George's, Telford, Shropshire, TF2 9LL (01952) 616300

Provided and run by:
HC-One Limited

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

All Inspections

23 September 2014

During an inspection in response to concerns

This inspection was carried out because we had received information of concern. The concerns related to the care and welfare of people who used the service and staffing. The visit was undertaken by two inspectors and started at 9.45pm at night.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. As part of this inspection we spoke with five people who used the service, five staff and the acting manager.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

From the outcomes we looked at during this inspection of St George's Park we saw evidence to support a judgement that this service was safe.

People told us staff were caring and supportive. For example one person said "I am very happy, all the staff are very kind. They are very good." Staff told us if they had any concerns about how people who used the service were cared for they would take their concerns seriously.

We found there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

Is the service caring?

From the outcomes we looked at during this inspection of St George's Park we saw evidence to support a judgement that this service was caring.

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. We observed call bells were answered in a timely manner.

Is the service effective?

From the outcomes we looked at during this inspection of St George's Park we saw evidence to support a judgement that this service was effective.

15 July 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

At the last inspection on 3 April 2013 we found that there were no breaches in the legal requirements in the areas we looked at.

St George’s Park was divided into two separate units. One unit provided nursing care and the other unit provided support for residential (non nursing) and people who lived with a dementia type illness. The service provided accommodation for up to 71 older people. The home offers dementia, nursing, residential, respite and end of life care. The home offers a range of communal facilities and each bedroom has an en suite toilet and shower. On the day of the inspection there were 60 people living at the home.

There was no registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has been registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider. The provider had appointed a manager, they had applied to be registered with the Care Quality Commission.

We observed that staff had no time to sit with people who lived at the home. Staff time was spent focused on task only. This meant staff did not spend time sitting and talking to people.  During the time of our inspection we observed there were not always sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. For example we saw that one person who required two hourly turns had a gap of not being turned for four hours and fifteen minutes. Staff we spoke with told us staffing levels were not always sufficient in the day. We observed the lunchtime meal which was not a positive experience for all people who lived at the home. This was because staff were rushed on Rydal unit. 

This was a breach of Regulation 22 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

We saw that people did not get the support they required at lunch time to ensure they ate their lunch and received sufficient fluids. We also saw that people that required their fluids monitoring did not have this done consistently. This could mean that they were at risk of becoming dehydrated. These issues were a breach of regulation 14 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Staff we spoke with and observations we made throughout the day demonstrated that staff were knowledgeable about individuals and how they preferred their care needs to be met. Staff training was up to date in mandatory topics such as safeguarding vulnerable adults and moving and handling.

We saw staff treat people with respect and their dignity was maintained.

The manager had introduced audits which assessed the quality of the service. For example care plan audits. This meant the manager monitored the effectiveness of care plans on a regular basis and told us action would be taken if anything arose out of an audit.

3 April 2013

During a routine inspection

We used a number of methods to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service, because not everyone was able to share their views. We spoke with four people living at the home and four visitors. We observed staff interaction with six people. We spoke with the operations manager, two nursing staff and two care staff. We looked at the care and medication records held on behalf of three people.

During our visit people were well cared for and their privacy was maintained throughout the day. People were treated as individuals and with sensitivity. Staff were professional at all times. Choices were offered and consent was sought before care or activities were provided. People told us the food was 'very good'. People had support when they needed it to eat and drink and this was done in a sensitive manner. Visitors told us, 'They look after my relative very well' and, 'We have no concerns'.

Staff understood people's needs, felt well supported and had professional development for their roles.

4 April 2012

During a routine inspection

We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 3 April 2012, observed how people were being cared for, looked at records of people who use services and other records relating to the running of the home.

We spoke to seven people who live at St Georges, five visitors, six staff, the deputy manager and the manager. There were 37 people living in the home on the day of the visit. The home has two separate units, Rydal where people with dementia live and Derwent where people with nursing needs are cared for.

We carried out this review to check if the outstanding compliance actions had been addressed and to look at three other outcomes.

People received care and support from a team of staff who cared for people's welfare. We observed significantly better interaction between staff and people who live at the home than on previous visits.

One person told us that 'staff are very good and know how to look after me'.

All the relatives spoken with were very satisfied with the standard of care provided and how staff worked together to care for people. Visitors were made welcome and able to visit whenever they wanted to. One relative told us that they had confidence in the staff and manager and were very satisfied with the way their relative was cared for.

We observed care throughout the day and we saw staff to be kind, sensitive and responsive to people's needs.

Staff were knowledgeable about how to keep people safe from the risk of harm and the home provided information and training to them on how to do this.

The provider protects people against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines, by means of making the appropriate arrangements for the obtaining, recording handling, using safe keeping, safe administration and disposal of medicines for the purpose of the regulated activities carried out at this location.

Staff were supervised and well supported by the management team and provided with appropriate training. Staff were very positive about the changes at the home which they felt had improved the qualify of life for people living at St Georges Park.

There had been a number of improvements made within the home to ensure that standards of quality and safety were met. The manager had introduced processes to monitor and audit areas such as care, catering, safety and staffing. Internal quality assurance processes showed that the home was continuing to make changes to improve people's quality of life.

8 December 2011

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this review to monitor improvements made by the home since the appointment of the new manager and since a new provider took over.

Although the new provider had only had responsibility for the home for one month it was positive to see that changes had already taken place and investment into the environment and into systems and processes had started. The new manager was described as strong and approachable.

People received care and support from a team of staff who cared for people's welfare. However there were differences in the quality of care provided by staff.

Only a few people could share their experiences of living at the home with us. We spoke with six people. One person was very positive and said, 'We are well looked after here'. They added, 'We never go short of nothing'. Other responses were equally as complimentary; however one person was not happy at being moved within the home and not knowing why.

We observed care throughout the day and overall staff were seen to be kind and sensitive. Some care practices were questioned and shared with the manager for review. The manager acknowledged that care had improved but was aware that there was still more work to do. They considered that changes to training and to support and monitoring would assist with this process.

Care plans identified people's care and support needs but of the three that we looked at as part of this review we found that some information was missing or out of date. This was particularly evident in relation to medication care plans. Three staff told us that they had not read the care plans and that information was shared with them during handover. The manager stated that profiles had now been developed that give an overview of people's care and said that these should always be read by staff who do not know people very well.

Lunchtime was observed to be a positive experience for people. Staff had time to sit with people who required assistance and choices were actively promoted. People told us that they liked the food although two people commented that they would like more to eat for breakfast.

There had been a number of improvements made within the home to ensure that standards of quality and safety were met. The new manager had introduced processes to monitor and audit areas such as care, catering, safety and staffing. Internal quality assurance processes showed that the home was continuing to make changes to improve people's quality of life. Staff felt better supported and all commented that they had noticed changes that had impacted positively on how they did their jobs. A relative also commented positively on staffing overall and also on the new management arrangements.

Although systems were in place to monitor medication arrangements within the home monthly we identified issues in relation to the recording, storage and administration of medication. In particular we had concerns about the administration of 'covert' medication that people took 'hidden' in food. As a result of our visit we shared information with the local authority safeguarding team who have responsibility for investigating alleged abuse and poor practice within services.