CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 19 Stone Lane
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2022
19 Stone Lane rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and familiar care, but concerns about consent, risk records and oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 November 2021. Two inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
People generally said they felt safe. Staff knew people well, supported healthy eating and helped people access healthcare and activities. Infection control, staffing, recruitment, safeguarding and medicines administration were mostly managed safely, although some medicines guidance was missing.
Inspectors found that restrictions, including locking the kitchen, had not always been properly assessed or legally authorised. Risk assessments and support plans were not always up to date or detailed enough. Management checks had not reliably found or corrected these problems.
The overall rating changed from Good to Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were all rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were not inspected at this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward.
Familiar, trained staff
People were supported by a consistent team who knew their needs. Staff had suitable induction and training, and relatives generally felt staff were skilled and experienced.
“People were supported by staff who knew them well and who had received suitable induction and training.” from the report
Positive relationships
People appeared relaxed with managers and staff. Relatives spoke positively about communication with the home and being involved in decisions about support.
“Relatives were positive and told us about the links they had with the managers and how they were consistently involved in decisions affecting their loved one's support.” from the report
Health and nutrition support
People were helped to eat and drink a balanced diet, make healthy choices and attend healthcare appointments. Staff had detailed guidance about some complex health and nutritional needs.
“People were supported to eat and drink a healthy balanced diet.” from the report
Safeguarding and infection control
People said they felt safe. Inspectors were assured that infection prevention measures, including protective equipment, testing and visiting arrangements, were in place.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Risk information
seriousSome risk assessments lacked practical guidance for staff and were not regularly reviewed. This could increase the risk of people receiving unsafe or unnecessarily restrictive support.
“Risk assessments did not always contain adequate information to provide staff with guidance to mitigate risks.” from the report
Restrictions and consent
seriousThe kitchen had been locked and other restrictions had not always been considered through proper capacity, best-interest or liberty safeguards processes. The home said it had stopped locking the kitchen after the inspection.
“Consent to care and treatment had not always been sought in line with law and guidance.” from the report
Incomplete care planning
needs fixingCare plans did not always describe people's communication, sensory needs, strengths or aspirations. This could lead to inconsistent support and fewer opportunities to build independence.
“People did not have communication or sensory assessments.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousGovernance systems had not reliably identified shortfalls in care records, risk reviews and restrictive practices. New quality systems were being introduced but were not yet embedded.
“The provider had failed to establish adequate systems and processes to assess and improve the quality and safety of the service provided or to assess and monitor risks.” from the report
Missing medicines guidance
needs fixingSome people did not have written protocols for medicines used when they became distressed. Staff knew people well, but important strategies were not consistently recorded.
“People did not have records of PRN protocols.” from the report
- 01Have all restrictions on access to the kitchen and other facilities now been risk assessed, reviewed under the Mental Capacity Act and recorded as least restrictive?
- 02How have you updated risk assessments, especially for community activities, and how often are they reviewed?
- 03Do all people who may need medicines when distressed now have clear, up-to-date protocols for when and how those medicines should be offered?
- 04Have communication and sensory assessments been completed, and do support plans now reflect each person's strengths, goals and aspirations?
- 05What evidence can you show that the new quality and safety monitoring systems are working and identifying problems promptly?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 January 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with strong support for communication, choice and community life.
The inspection took place on 22 October 2018 and was announced. One inspector met all six people living at the home, observed care and spoke with managers and a support worker. Records, medicines, staffing, training, complaints and quality checks were reviewed. Inspectors also spoke with relatives and social care professionals after the visit.
The home supported up to six people with learning disabilities and complex needs, including epilepsy. Inspectors found detailed care plans, suitable staffing, safe medicines management and a clean, well-maintained home. Staff understood people's communication needs and supported them with kindness, dignity and respect.
People were supported to make choices, stay as independent as possible and take part in local community life. Inspectors found effective quality checks and appropriate handling of complaints. All five areas were rated Good, and the overall Good rating continued from the previous inspection.
Personalised care
Care was tailored to people's individual needs, preferences and communication styles. Staff used accessible information and creative approaches to help people understand and take part in their care.
“People received a high standard of person-centred care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Kind staff
Staff were calm and patient when people became anxious or distressed. People were treated with dignity, respect and kindness.
“People were supported by kind and caring staff.” from the report
Safe care
Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, enough staff, safe medicines procedures and appropriate recruitment checks. The home was clean and hygienic.
“Medicines were safely managed and weekly audits were completed to support this.” from the report
Community inclusion
People were supported to enjoy activities, attend local events and take part in ordinary community life. Staff adapted support to help people remain involved.
“Thought had been given on how people living at the home took a key role in their local community.” from the report
Good oversight
The service had detailed audits and well-maintained records. Managers encouraged feedback from people, relatives and staff.
“The quality and safety of the service were audited on a regular basis.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative's specific communication method, such as pictures, signs or Makaton?
- 02What plans are in place for managing my relative's epilepsy or other complex health needs?
- 03How do you make sure there are enough staff when people go out or need extra support?
- 04How would my relative be supported to take part in activities and use local community facilities?
- 05How are families involved in care reviews and kept informed about incidents or changes in care?
This was an announced inspection of the overall service, including the premises and care, and all five CQC questions were rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 November 2018 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of 19 Stone Lane
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- January 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.