Saint Lawrence Residential Care Home

Inspectors found that staffing levels changed according to people's numbers and needs. Recruitment practices were safe.

“The provider monitored and made sure sufficient staff were deployed to safely support people.” from the report

Staff had safeguarding training and understood their responsibility to report concerns. People told inspectors they felt safe.

“Staff had received training in how to keep people safe from abuse.” from the report

Staff respected people's privacy and dignity. Inspectors saw good relationships between people and staff.

“The home was welcoming, and the atmosphere was warm and supportive.” from the report

Staff said they felt supported and valued, and could approach the management team with concerns.

“Morale within the service was good and the culture was open and relaxed.” from the report

Medicine stock records and storage temperature records were not always accurate or complete. Inspectors could not be assured that all medicines had been given and stored safely.

“This meant we could not be assured that medicines had been given as signed for by staff on the medicine's administration record.” from the report

Some people did not have detailed risk assessments, including people at high risk of falls. The home did not show that it had learned from accidents, incidents or falls.

“There was no evidence to show lessons had been learned from accidents, incidents or falls which had occurred at the service.” from the report

Some areas needed refurbishment and cleaning schedules were not always completed. The infection control policy and auditing were not up to date or effective.

“Some areas of the home required refurbishment to enable more effective cleaning and cleaning schedules were not always consistently completed.” from the report

Records did not always show capacity assessments or best-interest decisions. This included decisions about lowered beds and medicines.

“The Mental Capacity Act (2005) had not been followed to ensure that people could make decisions about their care.” from the report

Quality monitoring systems did not reliably identify problems or ensure that improvements were made promptly. Feedback from people and staff was not fully gathered and acted on.

“Systems designed to monitor the safety and quality of the service and take action to mitigate risk, were not robust.” from the report