St Peter's House

Staff had training and understood how to identify and report safeguarding concerns.

“Staff had been trained to safeguard people from abuse and understood when and how to report safeguarding concerns to the appropriate authority.” from the report

The home completed references and criminal record checks before staff were employed.

“People were supported by staff who had been recruited safely.” from the report

Inspectors were assured about the home’s infection prevention measures, including the use of protective equipment.

“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report

The provider accepted the findings and acted during and after the inspection.

“The provider demonstrated an open and transparent approach and understood their responsibilities under the duty of candour.” from the report

Risk assessments did not contain enough guidance for staff. Inspectors also found an unsecured wardrobe and gaps in food, fluid and oral care records.

“Risks had not been sufficiently assessed. Risk assessments were missing detailed guidance for staff on how to reduce risks.” from the report

Some medicines were unclear, unsecured or not recorded consistently. There were also concerns about missed medicines, creams and medicines given when people refused them.

“Although we found no evidence that people had been harmed, the safe management of medicines was not always effective.” from the report

Audits and governance systems did not identify or resolve important problems. Records were not always complete or accurate.

“The provider had failed to assess, monitor, and improve the service.” from the report

Many people, relatives and staff described a difficult atmosphere and ineffective management arrangements. The provider said it took immediate action to review these arrangements.

“We received overwhelmingly strong feedback that the management arrangements at the home were not effective or conducive to a professional working relationship.” from the report