St Georges Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question as requires improvement and the provider was in breach of the legal regulation as improvements were needed to the documentation of care provided to people and their individual care planning.

At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement although they were no longer in breach of the previous legal regulation as improvements had been made to the service having accurate and up to date records for people. We did find however, improvements were needed to ensure people received supportive and safe care as needed. This was a breach of legal regulation as improvements were needed to people getting safe care and treatment.

This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider had care plans and risk assessments in place for people. However, improvements were needed to ensure people received supportive safe care as needed and relatives felt improvements were still needed to there being enough staff.

Most improvements had been made to the documentation of the care provided to people. For example, care plans had important information about people’s individual care needs such as their diabetes care and how to support them if they needed reassurance. There was documentation of oral care, personal care and incontinence care provided. Although we found 1 person’s care plan and risk assessment was inconsistent with what support they needed with their repositioning. Some documentation said support every 2 hourly and some said 4 hourly. On occasions, they had been supported with their repositioning over 4 hourly. We raised our concerns with the service and the local authority as we were unable to establish if this person was being supported as required with their wound and pressure care. The provider’s training records confirmed not all staff had received training in how to support people with their pressure care.

Staff had training in dementia care although we found improvements were needed to how people were being supported with their dementia care and their environment. For example, during our inspection we observed 1 person needing assistance from staff as they had become upset within the communal dining area. There were no staff within the dining area to support them. We also observed during lunch, people were offered various meal choices. We found 1 person would have had an improved meal experience by having visual meal options provided to them. We raised this feedback with the service following our inspection as people can have an improved mealtime experience by being offered visual meal choices. This promotes people’s independence to make food choices making it easier and a more enjoyable experience for them. The provider needed to make improvements to the environment of the home. We observed, where people were living with dementia their individual rooms were not easily identifiable and there was no items for people to explore. We recommended the provider continues to work on the environment of the home to ensure it suited people’s needs.

Staff knew who needed support with their diabetes care however, some improvements were still needed to ensure people were supported adequately. For example, we found 1 person needed additional checks to support them with their diabetes care. This support had not been provided as per their care plan. This meant the person could have been at risk of other complications associated with the management of their diabetes. This had been raised with the local authority and the management team for the service. We also found nursing staff had been provided diabetes training However, improvements were needed to ensure care staff were provided with a suitable level of diabetes training relevant to their role. This would enable staff to recognise any early signs where someone might need support and assistance with their diabetes care.

People and relatives told us the care provided to people was supportive. However, one relative told us, “It’s quite short staffed.” Another relative told us, “There isn’t enough staff”. We raised this feedback with the management of the service following our inspection so they could review if people were being adequately supported as needed.

People had visits from the local GP surgery. Snacks and fluids were available throughout the service for people to help themselves.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe and effective staffing during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.