You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 9 August 2019

About the service

St Joseph’s is a residential care home, providing personal care and accommodation for up to 59 people. It provides care to older frail people, some of whom are living with dementia. Care is provided on four ‘wings’, known as Jade, Ruby, Topaz and Pearl, across two floors. Short stay ‘respite’ care is also available. Each ‘wing’ has a communal lounge, dining area and kitchenette. There are also spacious communal conservatories. The home has secure gardens people can access. At the time of our inspection visit 56 people lived at the home.

St Joseph’s is part of Father Hudson’s Care, which is the social care agency of the Catholic Archdiocese for Birmingham, a registered charity. The home has it’s own Chapel and offers daily Mass for those wishing to attend.

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

Staff knew people well and how to protect them from risks of harm or injury, such as falls. Risk management plans gave staff the information they needed to keep people safe. People had their prescribed medicine available to them. However, staff had not always followed manufacturer’s guidance when people had their medicines through a skin patch.

Staff did not always complete important records related to people’s food and fluid intake, and information recorded was not always accurate. The home was clean and tidy, and staff had been trained on how to prevent risks of cross infection.

There were sufficient staff on shift. Some staff felt night time staffing was low and the registered manager was assessing this to determine if a further night staff was required. Staff received an induction, training and support from within the staff team, and managers. Staff were trained in how to protect people from the risks of abuse. Further training was planned for staff where the registered manager had identified knowledge needed to be increased and refreshed.

People had their needs assessed before they moved into the home. People had plans of care relevant to their needs. Staff could also access a ‘snapshot’ overview of people’s needs which gave clear information. People had opportunities to engage in group activities. People could pursue their own interests and hobbies if they wished to. People’s pastoral care needs were met.

People had access to healthcare when required. On the day of our inspection we saw people were offered enough food and drink to meet their dietary requirements. Choices were available and additional snacks were offered.

Positive caring interactions took place between people and staff, and people felt well cared for. People made day to day decisions about their care and were supported by staff who worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Mental capacity assessments had been completed for people.

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.

Systems were in place for people to give their feedback on the service. People and relatives were happy with the services. People did not have any complaints.

The provider had recognised a staffing restructure had been needed to improve staff deployment in the home. This had been completed and needed to be embedded and improvements sustained.

Since our last inspection, improvements had been made to meet the requirements of the regulations. The provider’s quality assurance system identified where further improvements were needed, and a service improvement plan was shared with us detailing the provider’s timescale for implementing these.

The last rating for this service was Requires Improvement (published 12 September 2018) and there were breaches of the regulations. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 9 August 2019

The service was not consistently safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 August 2019

The service was Good.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 August 2019

The service was Good.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 August 2019

The service was Good.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 9 August 2019

The service was not consistently well led.

Details are in our well led findings below.