CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Anita Stone Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were given as planned, and staff understood safeguarding procedures. People and relatives said they felt safe and staff responded promptly to calls for help.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- People were supported to eat and drink, and there had been improvement in helping people who needed assistance at mealtimes. However, food and staff knowledge did not always meet the needs of people living with diabetes.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described and observed as kind, patient and respectful. People were supported to make choices, maintain privacy and dignity, and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Staff knew people's preferences and support needs. The home provided personalised activities, respected cultural and spiritual needs, and handled complaints and concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective systems for monitoring quality and safety. People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the current management team, although earlier frequent changes in staff and management had affected trust.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but support for people with diabetes needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 April 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, visitors, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They reviewed care and medicine records, staff files and records about how the home was managed.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, caring, responsive and well-led were rated Good. Effective was rated Requires Improvement. People were generally safe, treated kindly, involved in choices and supported by staff who knew them well.
The main shortfall was food and staff knowledge about the dietary needs of people living with diabetes. After the inspection, the provider arranged diabetes training for catering and care staff. The report says the home had improved since the previous inspection, when the overall rating was Requires Improvement.
Safe care
Risks were assessed and reviewed. The home also had checks for equipment, fire safety and infection control.
“Risks to people were assessed, reviewed and reflected accurately risks associated with people's identified needs.” from the report
Kind staff
Staff treated people with patience, kindness and respect. They encouraged people to make choices and do tasks for themselves.
“People were supported by kind and caring staff that knew them well.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff understood people's preferences and communication needs. The home offered meaningful activities and respected cultural and spiritual needs.
“There was an emphasis on the provision of activities that were meaningful to the people living in the home.” from the report
Improved oversight
The provider had introduced new systems to monitor the quality and safety of care. Inspectors found these systems were having an effective impact.
“At this inspection, we found the systems implemented had proved to have an effective impact on the monitoring of the delivery of the service.” from the report
Diabetes diets
needs fixingThe home needed to improve the food provided for people living with diabetes. Inspectors also found that staff needed more knowledge in this area, and diabetes training was arranged after the inspection.
“Some improvement was required in the provision of appropriate foodstuffs for people living with diabetes.” from the report
Earlier staff and management changes
minorFrequent changes of staff and management had previously affected people's and relatives' trust. Feedback about the current management team was positive at this inspection.
“Trust and confidence in the service had been shaken due to the frequent changes of staff and management.” from the report
- 01What diabetes training has been completed by catering and care staff since the inspection?
- 02How do you check that each person's meals meet their diabetes care and dietary needs?
- 03How do you monitor whether the improvements to mealtime support have continued?
- 04How stable are the current staff and management teams?
- 05How are relatives involved in reviewing care, food and the quality of the service?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions, following a previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 May 2019 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, May 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but weaknesses in food support, legal restrictions and quality checks.
Inspectors visited without notice on 28 March 2018 and returned for an announced visit on 4 April. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems, a clean environment, kind staff, respect for people's choices and dignity, activities, family involvement and a complaints process.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective and Well-led. Some people did not receive consistent support with meals, weight records were not reliable, cultural food needs were not always met, some legal restriction conditions were not followed, and quality checks did not identify problems quickly enough.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report possible abuse, and risks were assessed.
“People we spoke with told us they felt safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff being kind, patient and sensitive. People were offered choices and their privacy and dignity were respected.
“We saw interactions between people and staff throughout the day and noted staff were kind, patient and sensitive.” from the report
Activities and personal care
The home offered group and one-to-one activities based on people's interests. Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and life histories.
“We found there were two dedicated staff members that planned and delivered a programme of activities for people.” from the report
Safe medicines and clean surroundings
Medicine administration and storage were checked and found to be safe. Inspectors also found the home clean and well maintained.
“People were protected from the risk of infection because the home was clean and well maintained.” from the report
Inconsistent support at mealtimes
needs fixingSome people struggled to eat without prompt or practical support. Inspectors also found that staff did not always follow the guidance for a person at risk of aspiration.
“Our observations showed that not all staff followed the guidance in the person's care plan.” from the report
Weight records were not reliable
needs fixingFood intake and weight monitoring were not recorded consistently. Inspectors also found an example where a malnutrition risk score was incorrect.
“We had found there were inconsistencies in the monitoring and recording of peoples' weights.” from the report
Legal restriction conditions not always followed
seriousStaff had not been told about conditions attached to two people's liberty restrictions, and the conditions had not consistently been followed. The provider supplied evidence after the inspection that communication with relevant agencies had taken place.
“Where the authorisation contained conditions, to ensure the person's restrictions were lawful, we saw the provider had not consistently complied with the conditions as required by law.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager during the inspection. A manager had applied to become registered, but this was the third manager since the home opened in April 2016.
“The service did not have a registered manager in place at the time of the inspection.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure every person gets the right help to eat and drink, including people who need to be alert or have difficulty using cutlery?
- 02How are people's weights, food intake and malnutrition risk scores checked for accuracy now?
- 03How are conditions attached to people's Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations recorded and made known to every staff member involved?
- 04Who is currently responsible for quality monitoring while there is no registered manager, and how do you check that care plans and risk assessments stay up to date?
- 05What has changed since the inspection to make sure cultural food preferences are consistently provided?
This was an inspection of the overall service, including care, accommodation, medicines, staffing and management; the report says Safe and Responsive remained Good, Caring improved from Requires Improvement, and Effective and Well-led remained Requires Improvement since the April 2017 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 May 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 Anita Stone Court
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Birmingham
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 £950 to £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.