St Georges Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

The overall rating for this key question is Good. We reviewed all the quality statements for well-led. The provider had quality assurance systems although these had identified areas of improvement such as to improving people’s care plans, the recording of care delivery such as re-positioning, activities and the environment. We found improvements were needed to identifying individual shortfalls such as to 1 person’s care plan where they needed a detailed diabetic care plan and improvements to the recording of people’s individual care and support. This included the recording of care provided around repositioning, personal care, oral hygiene and incontinence care. Staff felt supported and the management team and the manager confirmed they had a diverse workforce who they supported flexibly. The management team were working with external professionals and agencies to improve partnership working and people’s care and support. The management of the home was accessible to people and their relatives. People could have their hair done with a visiting hairdresser and activities were available should people wish to attend. The provider confirmed they were recruiting to the role of an activities member of staff and would be reviewing what activities were available to people.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff felt the management of the service were approachable and they were well supported. One member of staff told us, “I can bring up with (the manager anything) anytime.” Another member of staff told us, “Manager does the supervision”. They also confirmed management were approachable.

The provider had a staff handbook that confirmed the values for the organisation. This included respecting residents, working honestly with integrity, having empathy, working in collaboration with others and with excellence. The providers audit undertook a review of the values of the organisation including any improvements needed. The management team confirmed they were working with staff and partner organisations to improve the culture of the service.

Staff told us they were able to raise concerns during supervision and if the need arose. The management team confirmed they were working with external agencies to improve people’s care this included working with the local GP surgery and the local authority safeguarding team.

The management team included a deputy and a manager who were available to staff and visitors. The service was also supported by a senior management team that included, a quality support manager and a regional manager. The management team of the service were open and transparent about the areas of improvement required within the service.

The management team were accessible. There were daily and weekly meetings so staff could raise concerns should they need to.

The management of the service were making improvements to the service. This included working with external professionals, improving staff’s competencies and the care people received. Staff had regular meetings and supervisions: these were an opportunity to discuss any learning.

Staff felt supported by the management of the service and it was a nice place to work. One member of staff told us, “It’s good, approachable management”. The manager confirmed the home had a diverse workforce and staff were supported with their individual needs. For example, by supporting staff to work flexibly or around religious needs.

The provider had support arrangements to support staff flexibly with their individual needs. This was through staff meetings, supervisions and the providers policies and procedures.

The management team confirmed they had an action plan that identified areas for improvement. Audits were completed on care plans, medicines management and the environment. The deputy manager confirmed daily meetings were held with staff to discuss people’s individual care needs this included any referrals needed for example to the GP/clinical lead. The senior management team undertook quality assurance visits. They attended multi-disciplinary meetings with external agencies, working in partnership to improve people’s care.

The providers medicines and care plan audits had not identified shortfalls found during this inspection. For example, 1 person’s care plan needed information around the management of their diabetes. There were also shortfalls in the recording of if people had been supported with their personal care, oral care, re-positioning and incontinence care. This meant on some occasions we were unable to establish if they had been supported with their care or not. Although individual audits had not identified shortfalls found during this inspection, the providers service improvement plan included improvements needed to the quality of people’s care plans and the recording of care provided such as people’s re-positioning, fluid charts and the recording of medicines. They had also identified improvements to the environment and people having access to meaningful activities and up and coming training for staff in supporting people with dementia. The providers action plan confirmed progress made and when actions were due to be completed by.

People could participate in activities within the service and people had visitors when they chose. People spent time in their room or the communal area of the home. People could access hairdressing facilities and fresh produce was shared with the service from a local allotment. People were observed eating the fresh produce as part of their lunch.

The management was working in partnership with other agencies so improvements could be made to people’s care and support. At the time of the assessment, these meetings were ongoing.

Health professionals confirmed improvements were required to ensure people got consistent care from staff who had the skills and knowledge to support people with their individual needs. They confirmed they were visiting the service, raising concerns with the managers and through partnership organisational meetings.

The management team were liaising and working with external partners so improvements could be made to the service and people’s individual care and support. Regular meetings were being held with external partners so people’s individual needs could be reviewed, such as their diabetes care.

The management of the service were open and transparent about the areas of improvement within the service. They confirmed they were working with external agencies to make these improvements. The provider undertook a staff survey. The last 1 was undertaken in March 2024. Staff meetings were used as an opportunity to make improvements to people’s care and support such as any learning from incidents or sharing important information.

People could raise a complaint. Complaints were logged by date, who had raised the complaint along with the details of the complaint and the outcome. People and relatives had their views sought through provider walk arounds, surveys and relative’s meetings. The provider had confirmation of actions taken following people’s feedback.