The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: St Katherine Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

9 Cobbett Road, Bitterne Park, Southampton, Hampshire, SO18 1HJ (023) 8055 6633

Provided and run by:
Chilworth Care Ltd

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

All Inspections

22 & 28 September 2015

During a routine inspection

This Inspection took place on 22 and 28 September 2015 and was unannounced. St Katherine Care Home provides accommodation and care for up to 20 older people with mental health needs or people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 13 people living at the home.

The home had a registered manager who had been registered since April 2015. 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.

At our previous inspection on 17 July 2014, we identified breaches of three regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. Arrangements in the laundry room was not adequate to promote and control the risk of infection. Medicines were not stored at the correct temperature and there were a lack of audits to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. We set compliance actions and the provider sent us an action plan stating they would be meeting the requirements of the regulations by 15 December 2014.

At this inspection we found effective action had been taken in the laundry room, medicines were stored at the correct temperature and audits were in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service.

We found people’s safety was compromised in some areas. The sink in the upstairs bathroom was cracked and there was rust on the downstairs shower pole, which meant it could not be cleaned properly. This presented a potential infection control risk to people.

People were supported to receive their medicines safely from suitably trained staff. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Relevant checks were conducted before staff started working at St Katherine to make sure they were of good character and had the necessary skills. Staff received regular supervision and support where they could discuss their training and development needs.

Staff sought consent from people before providing care or support. The ability of people to make decisions was assessed in line with legal requirements to ensure their liberty was not restricted unlawfully. Decisions were taken in the best interests of people.

People received varied and nutritious meals including a choice of fresh food and drinks. Staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes and offered alternatives if they did not want the menu option of the day.

People were cared for with kindness, compassion and sensitivity. We observed positive interactions between people and staff.

People and their families (where appropriate) were involved in assessing, planning and agreeing the care and support they received. People were encouraged to remain as independent as possible. Their privacy and dignity was protected.

Care plans provided comprehensive information about how people wished to receive care and support. This helped ensure people received personalised care in a way that met their individual needs.

There was an open and transparent culture at the home. There were appropriate management arrangements in place. Staff and people were encouraged to talk to the manager about any concerns. Regular audits of the service were carried out to assess and monitor the quality of the service.

17 July 2014

During a routine inspection

An adult social care inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We looked at the care and welfare of people, consent to care, safeguarding adults, infection control, medicines management and assessing the quality of the service. We spoke with three people, three staff and the manager. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask ;

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well-led

This is a summary of what we found;

Is the service safe?

People told us they were attended to whenever they needed help. Two people said the staff were 'very good'. A person told us 'I am very happy with the care. Staff treat you well'. The staff were knowledgeable about people's needs. They said they had adequate time to provide care and were supported to attend training.

We found the service had systems in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff had completed training in safeguarding vulnerable adults.

The home was clean and there were no offensive odours. However, there was a lack of systems to ensure infection control was monitored. The laundry room was not appropriately maintained and this put people at risk of cross infection.

There were some arrangements in place to manage people's medicines. The management of 'as required' medicines was not always carried out effectively. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to infection control and management of medicines.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. A senior staff manager told us there was no one under this safeguard who was receiving care at the time of our inspection. Staff were aware of people's rights to make choices and people were supported to be involved in their care.

Is the service effective?

The service was effective. Care plans included risk assessments and these were relevant to the person. We saw specific action required was developed to manage risks. People we spoke with were complimentary about the care and support they received. Support plans showed people's needs were assessed and clear information was provided for the staff. This included appropriate support with food and fluids and pressure risks management. Specific equipment was in place to support people to maintain their independence.

Is the service caring?

We noted people were supported in a caring and compassionate way. Staff and people using the service had developed good relationship and people were treated with respect. People were complimentary about the staff and the manager who was involved in their care. A person told us 'it's all good' when they described their care to us.

Is the service responsive?

The service was responsive to people's changing needs and took appropriate actions. People said they were satisfied with the care and support they were receiving. We saw people were able to access external healthcare facilities as needed. People had opportunities to express their views and a person told us they had 'regular talks about how things are going' with the manager and provider.

Is the service well-led?

There was a system to look at the safety of equipment and these were serviced regularly. There was a lack of audits to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service provided. This meant shortfalls were not always identified and remedial actions taken. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to assessing the quality of the service provision.

There was a system for responding to concerns and people were confident any concerns raised would be addressed.

29 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with six people using the service at the time of our inspection. They were satisfied with the care and support provided. One told us, 'I've always been happy here.' Another said, 'They do everything I need. The things they do are very good.' People said the staff were trained and supported to provide care that met their needs. They told us they had agreed to their care plans and that staff made sure they had their agreement before they delivered personal care.

Two family members said they were happy with the standard of care and support provided. They had had no cause for concern since their relative had been using the service.

We spoke with staff, reviewed records and observed the care and support people received. We found care and support were provided with people's consent, and staff followed proper procedures if people did not have capacity to make decisions about their care. The service provided effective support, that was caring and responsive to people's needs. People were protected from risks associated with the management of medicines.

Staff were supported to provide care that met people's needs. People's care records and other records to do with the management of the service were fit for purpose.

3 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with six out of 18 people using the service who told us they were happy and satisfied with their care. One said the home had a "peaceful and relaxed atmosphere" and was "well run". Another said "it's lovely here" and that the staff were "wonderful people". They told us that their dignity and independence were respected and maintained, and that their care and support was delivered according to plans they had helped write. They said that staff were able to provide the care required and that there were enough of them. A visitor said that they were "very impressed" with the care provided.

We found that people were respected and involved in the planning of their care, and that the care provided met their needs and ensured their safety and welfare. Staff were aware of the risks of abuse and steps had been taken to protect people and prevent abuse. The service had effective recruitment and induction processes, and made the necessary checks before people started work. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and take action based on the comments or feedback of staff, people using the service and others.