St Peter's House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We assessed a total of 2 quality statements from this key question. We have combined the scores for these areas with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for this key question remains good. People were supported to access healthcare, and their needs were met in holistic way. However, the provider failed to always take the necessary action in response to complaints raised with them.

This service scored 68 (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 Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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

People and their relatives told us of incidences when they had raised concerns and complaints with senior staff. However, these had not always been logged on the provider’s care compliance system. Team leaders had not always communicated to the registered manager complaints received for their follow up. This meant there was a lack of audit trail, investigation with lessons learnt, outcomes and actions taken in response. Other feedback from people’s relatives included, “The communication is as good as it could be. The other care home [person’s relative] was in was much better. At St Peters [person’s relative] say they have had a shower, but I could see their personal care was not happening. They [staff] say they can’t get involved as [person’s relative] has capacity to refuse, but at the other care home they coaxed and encouraged them to shower but I don't believe that is happening here.” And “The care is pretty good overall, but the laundry could be improved, they lose things a lot. We have marked all the clothing. They [person’s relative] had a very nice suede cardigan and that has gone missing. They charged us £26 for some kind of labeller. They also need to keep an eye on cleaning nails and regularly cut them.”

Staff told us there was a more open, listening and inclusive culture since the change in management. One member of staff told us, “Things are improving all the time, we are getting there.”

The service had a complaints policy and procedure in place; however, improvements were needed in the recording of action taken to respond to concerns raised. One incident occurred whereby the next of kin had not been notified of the death of a loved one until they visited the service 2 days later. Despite the next of kin’s attempts to make a formal complaint this was not communicated to the registered manager. We noted the provider’s investigation did not include contact with the next of kin to seek their views as to events and neither a review of the person’s end of life care plan which would have identified conflicting guidance recorded for staff to follow. Inspectors raised concerns about the quality of the investigation and in response the provider contacted the next of kin and followed up with a written apology. There were a number of systems in place to gather people’s feedback. This included a, ‘you said, we did’ comments log, residents and relatives' meetings and a visitor check system located in reception which encouraged visitors to feedback their comments.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People did not raise concerns in relation to experiencing inequality in experience or outcomes. Relatives told us that specialists and health professionals were consulted for advice and guidance when needed. Examples were shared with us of contact being made to source support from GP’s, community nurses and dementia specialists to support their loved ones.

Staff told us how they worked with other services to support their decision making and meet people’s needs. For example, staff supported people to access falls prevention teams, speech and language specialists and dementia support teams for advice in managing distressed behaviours. Staff told us they had systems in place to look at people’s likes and dislikes and how this included planning to ensure foods that people liked were included on the menu. The service completed referrals to health professionals or stakeholders where appropriate and as a result of people’s needs. This included referrals to speech and language therapist and dementia specialists. We saw where referrals were made these were recorded in a person’s daily care records and care plan.

Staff told us they had systems in place to look at people’s likes and dislikes and how this included planning to ensure foods that people liked were included on the menu. The service completed referrals to health professionals or stakeholders where appropriate and as a result of people’s needs. This included referrals to speech and language therapist and dementia specialists. We saw where referrals were made these were recorded in a person’s daily care records and care plan.

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