You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 18 April 2018

The inspection took place on 6 March 2018, and the visit was unannounced.

St. Georges provides residential care to older people including people recovering from health issues and some who are living with dementia. St. Georges is registered to provide care for up to 36 people. At the time of our inspection there were 30 people living at the home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

There was a registered manager was in post. 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.

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

The provider used a wide range of quality monitoring checks. Quality monitoring had been carried out effectively. The provider had a clear management structure within the home, which meant that the staff were aware who to contact out of hours if an emergency arose, or an equipment repair was necessary. Staff had access to the maintenance diary to manage any emergency repairs. The provider had developed opportunities for people to express their views about the service. These included the views and suggestions from people using the service and their relatives.

We found that applications had been made to the local authority to legally deprive people of their liberty. The registered manager and care staff had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. They were also aware of best interests meetings to ensure peoples treatment was in line with the MCA and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were asked for their written consent to care following their admission to the home. This was in addition to staff agreeing their actions prior to each caring intervention.

Staff were subject to a thorough recruitment procedure that ensured staff were qualified and suitable to work at the home. Following their recruitment staff received on-going training for their particular job role. Staff were able to explain how they kept people safe from abuse, and were aware of whistleblowing and what external assistance there was to follow up and report suspected abuse.

People were provided with a choice of meals that met their dietary and cultural needs. The catering staff were aware of people’s dietary needs, and sought people’s opinions about the menu choices to meet their individual needs and preferences. Staff and external agencies regularly provided a range of activities that were tailored to people’s interests. Staff had access to information and through this, developed a good understanding of people’s care needs. People were able to maintain contact with family and friends and visitors were welcome without undue restrictions.

Relatives we spoke with were complimentary about the provider, registered manager and staff, and the care offered to their relations. People or their relatives were involved in the review of their care plan. Staff had access to people’s care plans and received regular updates about their care needs. Care plans were updated to include changes to peoples care and treatment. People were offered and attended routine health checks, with health professionals both in the home and externally.

We observed staff interacted positively with people throughout the inspection, people were offered choices and their decisions were respected.

We received positive feedback from the staff at the local authority with r

Inspection areas



Updated 18 April 2018

The service was safe.

People were protected from the potential of cross infection.

Care plans included risk assessments and informed staff of areas where people required care to ensure their safety. Staff understood their responsibility to report any observed or suspected abuse. Staff were recruited and employed in numbers to protect people. Medicines were ordered administered and stored safely.



Updated 18 April 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had completed essential training to meet people�s needs safely and to a suitable standard. People received appropriate food choices that provided a well-balanced diet and met their nutritional and cultural needs. Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and sought people�s consent to care before it was offered.



Updated 18 April 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were caring and kind, treated people as individuals and recognised their privacy and dignity at all times. Staff understood the importance of caring for people in a dignified way, and people and their relatives were encouraged to make choices and were involved in decisions about their care.



Updated 18 April 2018

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care that met their needs. People and their families were involved in planning how they were cared for and supported. Staff understood people�s preferences, likes and dislikes and how they wanted to spend their time. People and their relatives were confident to raise concerns or make a formal complaint if necessary. People were supported to have a dignified and pain free death.



Updated 18 April 2018

The service was well led.

People using the service and their relatives had regular opportunities to share their views and influence the development of the service. The provider uses quality audits to check people were being provided with good care.