Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory

St Marys View, Whitley Bay.

St Marys View in Whitley Bay is a Residential home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care and learning disabilities. The last inspection date here was 16th March 2017

St Marys View is managed by Aspire Healthcare Limited who are also responsible for 13 other locations

Contact Details:

      St Marys View
      Brook Street
      Whitley Bay
      NE26 1AR
      United Kingdom


For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2017-03-16
    Last Published 2017-03-16

Local Authority:

    North Tyneside

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

9th January 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The inspection took place on 9 January 2017 and was unannounced. We last inspected the home on 3 and 4 September 2015 and found the provider had breached the regulations relating to the safety of the premises and good governance. We found the provider had made progress since our last inspection and was now meeting the requirements of the regulations.

St Marys View provides residential care for up to 10 people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were eight people living at the service.

The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Action had been taken to deal with the health and safety related issues we identified during our last inspection. This included replacing the rotting fire escape and removing an unsafe shower tray. The provider’s representative was carrying out regular quality assurance visits and a record kept of their findings.

People gave us consistently positive feedback about their care. They told us they were well cared for and that care workers were kind and considerate. People also said they were supported to be independent and to make their own choices and decisions.

Where potential risks to people’s safety had been identified, a specific risk assessment was carried out to help keep them safe.

Medicine records supported the safe administration of medicines. People received their medicines from trained care workers. There was no on-going system in place to monitor the competency of care workers to administer medicines. We have made a recommendation about this. The provider kept accurate medicines records to account for the medicines people had received and to show medicines were stored appropriately.

There were sufficient care workers deployed within the home. People confirmed care workers provided timely help and support if needed. The provider completed a range of checks to help ensure new care workers were suitable to work with the people living at the home. This included disclosure and barring service (DBS) checks.

The provider carried out regular health and safety checks, such as checks of fire safety, the electrical installation, gas safety, water temperatures and portable appliance testing. Incidents and accidents were logged and fully investigated.

Care workers said received good support and had regular one to one supervision. Records confirmed care workers had completed training relevant to their role, such as moving and assisting, nutrition, first aid, fire safety, and infection control.

The provider followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), including the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS authorisations were in place for two people using the service.

People had access to a range of health professionals, such as GPs, opticians, chiropodists, community nurses and hospital consultants.

People told us they were happy with their care but also knew how to complain if required. There had been no complaints made about the home since we last inspected.

Care records included background information about each person including details of their care preferences. People’s needs had been assessed and personalised care plans written. Care plans were evaluated monthly to keep them up to date. People had goals to work towards and progress towards achieving goals was measured periodically.

People could share their views about the service through attending a regular residents’ meeting or taking part in surveys. Residents’ meetings were well attended and were used to discuss safety and gather people’s views about the meals and activities provided in the home.

Following our last inspection the provider was

1st January 1970 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The unannounced inspection took place on 3 September 2015 followed by an announced visit on the 4 September. This was the first inspection at the service since it was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) on 29 April 2014.

St Marys View provides residential care for up to 10 people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were eight people living at the service.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We found some shortfalls in the maintenance of the property, including an unused external staircase in very poor condition.

People told us they felt safe living at the home. Relatives told us they were confident their family member lived in a safe environment. One relative told us, “Yes they appear to be safe and well looked after.” We felt that the service was homely, particularly in people’s bedrooms.

Staff understood safeguarding procedures. They also knew how to report any concerns they had and would not be frightened to do that. The provider had procedures in place to monitor and investigate any safeguarding matters. One staff member said, “I would not hesitate to report anything I saw.”

Accidents and incidents that occurred were recorded and risk assessments completed to minimise the levels of risk to people living at the service. The provider had emergency procedures in place for staff to follow should they find a situation where they needed additional support and information or advice.

Checks had been completed on the building to ensure that equipment was safe to use, including gas and electrical checks.

Staff at the service were trained to administer medicines to people safely and securely and medicines were generally managed well.

Staff followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). MCA assessments and ‘best interests’ decisions had been made where there were doubts about a person’s capacity to make decisions. The registered manager had also made two DoLS applications to the local authority.

People had access to healthcare professionals if they needed and staff supported them with their appointments if that was required.

One person told us, “Yes, there is plenty staff working here.” The registered manager monitored staffing levels to ensure enough trained staff were available at all times. The registered manager also had a programme of staff training in place and monitored this to ensure all staff were kept up to date with any training needs. The provider had systems in place for the safe recruitment of all staff at the service.

Staff were supervised regularly and received annual appraisals from their line manager.

People’s needs had been assessed and were regularly reviewed. It was clear that people had participated in these along with relevant family members where this was possible.

People enjoyed the food that was available at the service and helped with the preparation. We found people received nutritious meals, snacks and refreshments throughout the day.

People were respected and treated with dignity, warmth and kindness. People and their relatives that we spoke with highlighted the quality of care provided by staff at the service. One relative, “They (person) seem happy and perky enough so they must be caring for them alright.”

There was a range of social activities available for people to participate in if they chose to do so. There was a timetable of activities available in the service, such as bingo, dominoes and home baking and staff helped to organise trips and holidays for people. One person said, “I like to go to Blackpool.”

There had been no complaints since the last scheduled inspection. Information on how to complain was available to people at the service and to relatives and visitors alike. The registered manager explained what she would do if a complaint was made and showed us where they would be recorded.

While we spoke with one person the registered manager arrived at the service and they rushed to the door shouting, “Its (registered managers name), here is the boss.” It was obvious they were pleased to see them. Relatives spoke well of the registered manager and staff.

People were asked their views on the service and about their care. Relatives confirmed they were asked their views, during visits or when reviews of care occurred.

Whilst there were a number of audits and checks on the quality of the service completed, we did not find these were robust. Records had not been made of the quality assurance visits carried out by the provider’s representative. Shortfalls we found on our inspection had not been highlighted by the service’s internal auditing systems.

We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These related to premises and equipment and good governance. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.



Latest Additions: