CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 56 Stone Lane
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm, and staff understood safeguarding and individual risks. Inspectors found safe medicines processes, enough staff and suitable recruitment checks.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff were trained and supported. People received appropriate food, healthcare and support with decisions under the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were attentive, kind and respectful. People and relatives were involved in care planning, and staff promoted dignity, choice and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and person-centred. People were supported with communication, relationships, faith and a wide range of activities inside and outside the home.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive leadership, teamwork and an open culture. Audits and feedback systems were used to monitor quality and improve care.
What inspectors found, February 2020
56 Stone Lane was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with the rating unchanged since 2017.
This was a planned inspection on 21 and 23 January 2020. One inspector observed care, spoke with relatives, managers and care staff, and reviewed care records, recruitment files, audits and health and safety documents.
The home supported three people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training, good communication with health professionals, and care that promoted choice, independence and inclusion.
People appeared happy and relatives gave positive feedback. The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection published in June 2017.
Choice and independence
Support focused on helping people make choices, develop skills and become more independent.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw staff spending time with people and treating them with kindness, respect and reassurance.
“We heard and saw staff being attentive and reassuring to people.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's preferences, interests, communication needs and personal information so staff could support them in an individual way.
“Detailed individual person-centred care plans had been developed, enabling staff to support people in a personalised way that was specific to their needs and preferences, including any individual religious beliefs.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to take part in varied activities and to go out into the local community.
“We saw a varied range of activities on offer which included, music, arts and crafts, exercise, trips to local cafes, pubs and restaurants, cinema and swimming.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, and staff said their training and support were good.
“On the day of inspection, we saw that people received support in a timely manner and staff were able to spend time with people.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you tailor the activity planner to my relative's interests, confidence and communication needs?
- 02How would you support my relative to make decisions and remain as independent as possible?
- 03How would you record and meet my relative's communication needs, including whether Makaton, communication books or easy-read information would be suitable?
- 04How do you check that medicines are given safely and that records remain complete?
- 05How would staffing cover work if staff from another home were needed?
This was an announced planned inspection covering the overall quality of the home and all five CQC questions; the previous Good ratings were reassessed and remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 February 2020 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, June 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with only minor areas for improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 April 2017. One inspector observed care, spoke with people and staff, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files, rotas, training and management records. This was the first inspection since the home registered in May 2016.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were kept safe, supported by trained staff and treated with dignity and respect.
Care plans gave detailed, personalised guidance. People were supported with communication, activities, meals, healthcare and personal goals. The home had systems to monitor quality, and people and relatives were asked for their views.
Personalised care
Care plans included people's routines, communication needs, health needs and goals. Staff supported people to work towards short and long-term aims.
“Care plans were written in an accessible format and provided detailed advice and guidance to staff on people's care and support needs.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw positive relationships between people and staff. People were treated as equals and their privacy and choices were respected.
“Positive, caring relationships were evident between people and staff.” from the report
Communication support
Staff had training in Makaton and picture-based communication to support people who had little or no verbal communication.
“Staff had also been trained in communication techniques, including Makaton and Picture Exchange Communication System, to enable them to communicate with people who had little or no verbal communication.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Staffing levels matched people's needs at home and in the community. Medicines were locked away, staff were trained and regular audits were completed.
“Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs.” from the report
People's involvement
People helped plan menus, choose activities and review their risks and care plans. Their views were gathered through meetings and questionnaires.
“People were involved in developing the service and their feedback was listened to.” from the report
Accessible information still being expanded
minorSome care information was accessible, but the home said it needed to do more to expand this. Ask what has been added since the inspection.
“Some effort had been made to provide care documentation in accessible format.” from the report
Early transition incidents
needs fixingA healthcare professional reported that recommendations were not followed during a couple of incidents in the early transition period. Inspectors said the home had learnt from this and the incidents had not been repeated.
“There were a couple of incidents where recommendations were not followed in the initial transition stages, but the service demonstrated that they learnt from these errors and these have not been repeated.” from the report
- 01What accessible care information, communication tools and documents are available now?
- 02How will staff follow recommendations from health and social care professionals during a person's move into the home?
- 03How are staffing levels decided when people are at home, out in the community or need one-to-one or two-to-one support?
- 04How will my relative be involved in choosing activities, meals and personal goals?
- 05How will the home keep me informed about my relative's keyworker, health appointments and progress?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five key questions; the report says the home had registered with the Commission in May 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 June 2017 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 56 Stone Lane
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 May 2016.
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.