We carried out a review of the data available to us about St Annes Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about St Annes Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
St Anne’s Care Home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to a maximum of 40 older people, including people who live with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 30 people living at the home.
People's experience of using this service and what we found
People felt safe and supported by staff. They told us they didn’t have to wait for support as staff were patient with them.
People’s care plans were up to date but needed more person-centred detail to improve them. The provider had recognised this and had plans in place to improve records.
Systems and processes for identifying patterns and trends were in place. The provider planned to improve the means by which they analysed falls to help reduce risks.
The provider needed to try more innovative and creative work to try and reduce the risk of falls. We have made a recommendation about this.
Medicines administration was safe. Records were clear and auditing had been improved recently following advice from external professionals.
There were sufficient staff to keep people safe. The provider had reduced reliance on agency staff significantly, meaning people had started to received a greater continuity and consistency of care.
People were kept safe from the risk of abuse. Relevant policies were up to date. When incidents occurred the provider acted promptly.
Staff were recruited safely. Supervisions and team meetings reminded staff of areas of good practice to keep people safe. Staff felt well supported and able to speak up if they had concerns.
The registered manager had made some positive changes and had more planned. These included reinstating relatives and residents’ meetings, an introductory coffee morning, and a range of staff champions to improve understanding and application of best practice.
The provider had a conflict of interest policy in place but had not always had regard to it. We have made a recommendation about this.
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.
The registered manager demonstrated a strong understanding of the service and people who used it.
The environment was clean. There was a range of refurbishment work underway. Where completed, it had a positive impact on people’s day to day quality of life. There was ongoing work to the dining and communal areas. The provider was trying to reduce the impact of this on people and had on-site maintenance support in place.
The provider worked well with external professionals to ensure people received the help they needed.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 3 April 2020).
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service. We undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.
For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our reinspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ Systems were in place to help prevent people, staff and visitors from catching and spreading infection.
¿ There was sufficient PPE such as aprons, gloves and masks. Staff had undertaken training in putting on and taking off PPE. Systems were in place to help ensure staff were supported.
¿ The home had received lots of compliments from relatives about the hard work and dedication staff had shown throughout the pandemic. They felt this had helped to minimise the impact of the pandemic upon people's health and wellbeing.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
St Annes is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 40 older people. At the time of this inspection 35 people were using the service, some of whom had dementia related conditions.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were kept safe. Risks were identified and minimised. People were encouraged to maintain independence and take positive risks to enhance their quality of life.
Staff assessed people’s health and social care needs, and relevant care plans were put in place. Medicines were safely administered. We have made a recommendation about record keeping related to ‘as required’ medicines.
The staffing levels were appropriate to meet people’s needs. Staff recruitment was safe, and training was regularly updated. Checks were carried out on staff to ensure they remained competent.
The environment was safe and clean. Accidents and incidents were recorded, investigated and reported. Any lessons learned were shared with staff.
Staff displayed caring values and knew people well. They promoted privacy and dignity and respected people’s wishes. People were involved in making decisions about their care.
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.
Activities were organised which involved people and encouraged socialisation. People also enjoyed time with staff individually. Visitors received a warm welcome.
The management team supported staff to provide good quality, person-centred care. A good quality assurance process was embedded throughout the service. Provider representatives carried out monthly checks of the service to monitor the quality and safety. The provider had invested in the home to make continuous improvements.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was good (published 2 September 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about St Annes until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
St. Anne’s Care Home is a large three storey property overlooking the seafront at Whitley Bay and is close to the local amenities. The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 40 older people who may also be living with a physical disability or a dementia related condition. Nursing care is not provided. At the time of our inspection there were 38 people using the service.
The established registered manager was still 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.
People told us that they felt safe living at St. Anne’s with the support from the staff. There were safeguarding policies and procedures in place. Staff demonstrated that they were knowledgeable about what action they should take if they suspected people were at risk of harm. The local authority informed us that were no concerns regarding the service.
Records were kept up to date regarding accidents, incidents and near misses. These were recorded, investigated and reported in a timely manner to other relevant authorities such as the local authority or CQC as necessary.
The service managed risks associated with the health, safety and well-being of people, including completing regular checks of the property, equipment and utilities in line with their legal responsibilities. People’s individual care needs related to aspects of daily living had been risk assessed and these were frequently reviewed.
Medicines were managed and administered safely and medicine administration records were organised, detailed and correct. Medicines were stored in a safe and secure place. Staff followed a strict policy and procedures regarding the receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines.
There was a sufficient level of staff deployed to safely meet people’s needs. Staff records showed a robust recruitment process was in place and staff had been safely recruited. Staff training was up to date, and they were supported in their role by the management team through regular supervision and appraisal sessions.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operations of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) including the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and to report on what we find. MCA is a law that protects and supports people who do not have the ability to make their own decisions and to ensure decisions are made in their ‘best interests’. It also ensures unlawful restrictions are not placed on people in care homes and hospitals. In England, the local authority authorises applications to deprive people of their liberty. We found the service was complying with legal requirements and applying the principals of the MCA.
Nutrition and hydration needs were met. We observed people received a choice of wholesome meals which were prepared by the catering team. People had choice around mealtimes but often ate one of the planned meals from the menu at a set time in the communal dining room. We saw people could chose an alternative meal, time and room if they preferred and individual dietary requirements were fulfilled. The service had involved external health professionals as necessary to meet people’s changing needs and to support their general health and welfare.
People’s individual health and social care needs had been assessed and a person-centred support plan was in place. We saw these were reviewed regularly to ensure staff were aware of people’s current needs.
An activities coordinator was employed at the service and we saw a wide variety of activities on offer which people and their relatives enjoyed. One-to-one and group activities were promoted to reduce social isolation amongst people. Visitors were welcomed into the home at any time.
The registered manager told us how complaints were investigated and managed. Records confirmed this was done in a timely manner. The complaints procedure was on display and had been shared with people, relatives and external professionals. The service had received many compliments and ‘Thank you’ cards.
We heard a lot of positive comments about the staff. They were described as kind, caring and considerate of people’s needs. People were treated with dignity and respect and their privacy was maintained. The registered manager and deputy manager were very visible and involved in delivering care to people.
The management team conducted regular quality assurance checks. These were overseen by a representative from the provider’s organisation. These included daily, weekly and monthly checks of care monitoring tools to ensure people received high quality, appropriate care which met their needs. Regular staff meetings took place to ensure there was consistent and effective communication.
Surveys had been recently issued to gain the opinion of people, staff, relatives and professionals about how the service was managed and how it could be improved. We saw there had been an overall positive response to the survey and the results of which had been sent to the provider for evaluation and publication. Staff spoke highly of working at the home and they told us they felt valued and appreciated by the management team.