CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Care at Stennings
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff understood safeguarding procedures. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, enough staff, safe medicines support and well-managed infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and staff had suitable training and supervision. Improvements had been made to mental capacity assessments, although some Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications were still awaiting assessment.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were involved in decisions and encouraged to develop their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and care was personalised. People were supported with communication, activities, community access and important relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Staff worked well together and people, relatives and staff were asked for their views. Quality checks supported improvement, although an external professional audit had been delayed.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
The inspection took place on 17 January 2020 and was carried out by one inspector. The inspector spoke with people, staff, relatives and health and social care professionals. They also observed care and checked care, medicine, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, suitable risk assessments and good infection control. People were treated with kindness, involved in decisions and supported to build independence, communicate, access activities and maintain relationships.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, with a breach of regulation. Inspectors found that improvements had been made and the home was no longer in breach. Applications for some Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had not yet been assessed, and an external quality audit had been delayed.
Kind and respectful care
People had positive relationships with staff. Their privacy, dignity, choices and differences were respected.
“People were treated with kindness and care. People made choices about their day to day support and were encouraged to express their views.” from the report
Independence and activities
People were supported to learn skills, take part in household tasks, use the community and follow interests such as sport, music and outings.
“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
Improvement since the last inspection
The home had addressed the previous inspection's concerns about mental capacity assessments and incident notifications. The earlier breach had been resolved.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Pending safeguards applications
needs fixingApplications for some Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been made but had not yet been assessed by the local authority. Ask how these applications were progressed.
“The registered manager had made applications to the local authority for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards for some people. However, these had not yet been assessed by the local authority.” from the report
- 01What happened with the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications that were awaiting local authority assessment?
- 02Was the delayed external professional audit completed in February 2020, and what did it find?
- 03How will you support my relative to build independence and take part in activities they choose?
- 04How will you support my relative's communication needs, including the use of pictures or other communication tools?
- 05How are medicine records checked and what would happen if a medicine error occurred?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection following the previous Requires Improvement rating and covered all five CQC questions. 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, January 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but concerns about decision-making records and management checks.
The inspection was announced and took place on 28 and 29 November 2018. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff, the manager and a health and social care professional. They also checked care records, staff files, medicines information and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring and Responsive. People felt safe, medicines were managed safely, staff were kind, and care and activities were personalised. People were supported with healthcare, independence and community activities.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective and Well-led, giving an overall rating of Requires Improvement. Some mental capacity assessments did not clearly involve the person or explain decisions. The provider also failed to notify CQC about a safeguarding incident, and some quality checks had not led to action.
People felt safe
Risks to people and the environment were assessed and managed. Staffing levels were considered sufficient, and medicines were handled safely.
“People told us they felt safe and lessons were learnt when things went wrong.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their communication, privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, needs and goals. People were supported to follow interests, attend activities and take part in community life.
“Care plans and guidance for staff was detailed and person centred.” from the report
Good access to activities
People took part in activities linked to their interests, including community groups, education, voluntary work, holidays and exercise.
“Activities were personalised to people's needs and interests.” from the report
Positive daily culture
People, relatives and staff described approachable management and good relationships. Staff worked with other agencies to support people.
“The day to day culture within the service was positive and person centred.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome assessments did not clearly identify the decision, involve the person or relevant others, or record why a decision was least restrictive. The manager provided improved assessments after the inspection, but CQC had not checked whether this was sustained.
“When people were assessed as lacking the capacity to make decisions, the process of making a decision, about the least restrictive option in their best interests, was not recorded.” from the report
Missed safeguarding notification
seriousThe provider did not tell CQC about a safeguarding investigation involving alleged abuse, as required. The notification was sent after the inspection.
“A safeguarding had been investigated by the local authority about alleged abuse. However, we had not been notified of this.” from the report
Quality checks not always effective
needs fixingAn external audit identified an action about a missing safeguarding notification, but the provider did not ensure that it was completed.
“Quality assurance audits had not always been used effectively to make improvements to the service.” from the report
- 01How are mental capacity assessments now made specific to each decision?
- 02How are people, relatives and relevant professionals involved in best-interest decisions?
- 03What system ensures that safeguarding incidents are notified to CQC on time?
- 04How do you check that actions from audits are completed and remain effective?
- 05What evidence can you show that the improvements made after this inspection have been sustained?
This was an announced inspection covering all five key questions and included discussions with people, relatives, staff, the manager and a health and social care professional, as well as checks of care and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 January 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.
Every inspection of Care at Stennings
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 December 2010.
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.