You are here

Archived: St. John's Almshouses Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 17 January 2017

This inspection took place on 29 November and 02 December 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 24 hours because the location provides a domiciliary care service; we need to be sure that someone would be available in the office.

St. John’s Almshouses is a registered charity that provides a personal care service to people who live in a complex of private apartments within communal grounds. Whilst not all people needed any personal care or support, those that did could either choose to make their own arrangements or use the personal care service provided by St. John’s Almshouses staff. When we visited, four people were using the service and receiving support with their personal care. Other people who lived at St. John’s Almshouses could receive care and support should they need it in an emergency.

The service had a registered manager. 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 and their families told us they felt safe and secure when receiving care. Relevant recruitment checks were conducted before staff started working at St John’s Almhouses to make sure they were of good character and had the necessary skills. However, there dates weren’t clear in staff employment histories. Therefore it was not possible to identify whether there were any gaps in between jobs. The manager was aware of our concerns and actions to address them had already been put in place.

People’s risks were not always managed effectively. People’s risk assessments and those relating to their homes’ environment were detailed and helped reduce risks to people while maintaining their independence. However, some people’s care records did not contain information to help staff reduce risks to people’s diabetes management.

Staff received training in safeguarding adults. They completed a wide range of training and felt it supported them in their job role. New staff completed an induction before being permitted to work unsupervised. Staff told us they felt supported and received regular supervision and support to discuss areas of development. Staff meetings were held every three months. There were sufficient numbers of staff to maintain the schedule of care visits to meet people’s needs.

People who used the service felt they were treated with kindness and said their privacy and dignity was respected. People received their medicines safely. Staff had an understanding of legislation designed to protect people’s rights and were clear that people had the right to make their own choices.

Staff were responsive to people’s needs which were detailed in people’s care plans. Care plans provided comprehensive information which helped ensure people received personalised care. People felt listened to and a complaints procedure was in place.

Staff felt supported by the registered manager and could visit the office to discuss any concerns. Staff meetings were held regularly. There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided. Accidents and incidents were monitored, analysed and remedial actions identified to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 17 January 2017

The service was not always safe.

Recruiting practices were safe; however there were gaps in care workers� employment histories and one staff member had references missing from their file.

Risks to people�s welfare were identified and plans put in place to minimise the risks; however, they did not contain information regarding diabetes.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people�s needs. Staff were trained and assessed as competent to support people with medicines.

People felt safe and secure when receiving support from staff members. Staff received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to report concerns.



Updated 17 January 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received appropriate training and one to one supervisions. People were supported to access health professionals and treatments.

Staff sought consent from people before providing care and followed legislation designed to protect people�s rights.



Updated 17 January 2017

The service was caring.

People and their families felt staff treated them with kindness and compassion.

People were encouraged to remain as independent as possible. They were involved in planning the care and support they received. Their dignity and privacy was respected at all times.



Updated 17 January 2017

The service was responsive.

People told us the care they received was personalised and their needs were reviewed regularly to ensure their care plans remained appropriate.

The registered manager sought feedback from people. An effective complaints procedure was in place.



Updated 17 January 2017

The service was well led.

People and staff spoke highly of the registered manager, who was approachable and supportive.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided.

The service had appropriate policies in place.