You are here

St Georges Residential Home Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 16 May 2018

This inspection took place on 1 February 2018 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.

At our last inspection in November 2016 the service received an overall rating of good. The domain responsive was rated as requires improvement. At this inspection we found improvements had been consistently maintained with regard to record keeping and the rating for the responsive domain has now improved to good. We found the evidence continued to support an overall rating of good.

St Georges is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

St Georges accommodates a maximum of 38 older people, including people who live with dementia or a dementia related condition, in one adapted building. At the time of inspection 36 people were using the service.

A manager was in post. They had applied but were not yet registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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.

There was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns.

This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People said they felt safe and they could speak to staff as they were approachable. We considered however that staff deployment needed to be kept under review. We have made a recommendation about ensuring staff are appropriately deployed to meet people’s needs. We observed activities were not always available to keep some people engaged and stimulated in some areas of the home where staff were not always available.

Staff knew about safeguarding vulnerable adults procedures. Staff were subject to robust recruitment checks. Risk assessments were in place and they accurately identified current risks to the person as well as ways for staff to minimise or appropriately manage those risks. A system was not in place to look at trends and patterns where several incidents such as falls occurred.

People had access to health care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. Staff followed advice given by professionals to make sure people received the care they needed. People received a varied and balanced diet to meet their nutritional needs. Systems were in place for people to receive their medicines. However, we have made a recommendation about the management of medicines.

Appropriate training was provided and staff were supervised and supported. Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and best interest decision making, when people were unable to make decisions themselves. 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.

Detailed records reflected the care provided by staff. Care was provided with kindness and people’s privacy and dignity were respected. Communication was effective to ensure staff and relatives were kept up to date about any changes in people’s care and support needs and the running of the service.

A complaints procedure was available. People told us they would feel confident to speak to staff about any concerns if they needed to. The provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided.

People had the opportunity to give their views about the service. There was regular consultation with people and family members and their vie

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 16 May 2018

Most aspects of the service were safe.

We have made a recommendation that staff are appropriately deployed to meet people�s needs safely.

Risk assessments were carried out to keep people safe. Individual analysis of incidents took place and corrective measures taken individually. However, more in depth analysis was required to look at patterns and trends of incidents.

People received their medicines safely. However, we have made a recommendation about medicines management.



Updated 16 May 2018

The service remains good.



Updated 16 May 2018

The service remains good.



Updated 16 May 2018

The service was responsive.

There was good standard of record keeping to help staff provide person-centred care and support.

There was a varied programme of activities and entertainment to stimulate people and to help keep them engaged.

People were aware of how to make a complaint should they need to and expressed confidence in the process.



Updated 16 May 2018

The service remains good.