CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at OSJCT Stirlings
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks, recruitment, staffing, medicines and infection control were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care plans were reviewed. Staff were trained, people's nutrition and health needs were supported, and their choices were respected.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as caring. Inspectors saw respectful communication and found that staff understood people's individual needs and preferences.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- The home went exceptionally far to tailor activities, support relationships and connect people with the local community. Care plans reflected people's routines, preferences and changing needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a clear management structure, supportive leadership and quality checks covering areas such as care plans, medicines and staff files.
What inspectors found, July 2019
OSJCT Stirlings was rated Good overall, with Outstanding activities and relationship support, and no breaches reported.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 June 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good for safety, effectiveness, caring and leadership. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with respect, supported to make choices, and cared for by staff who knew them well.
The home was rated Outstanding for being responsive. Inspectors found very personalised activities, strong links with families and the local community, and support that helped people maintain important relationships.
The overall rating stayed Good, as it was at the previous inspection. The responsive rating improved from Good to Outstanding.
Personalised activities
The home built activities around people's past interests and ambitions. Inspectors found this helped people enjoy life and regain interest in going out.
“Arrangements for social activities were innovative, met people's individual needs, and followed best practice guidance so people could live as full a life as possible.” from the report
Relationships and community
The home helped people reconnect with relatives and supported couples to remain together. It also maintained links with schools, community groups and local visitors.
“The service had gone the extra mile to encourage and support people to develop and maintain relationships with people that matter to them.” from the report
Safe care
Inspectors found suitable risk management, safe recruitment, enough staff on duty and safe medicines administration. People said they felt safe and received help when needed.
“People living at Stirlings received safe care from skilled and knowledgeable staff.” from the report
Respect and choice
People were involved in decisions about their care, food and daily routines. Staff supported independence and respected privacy, dignity and personal preferences.
“People's rights to make their own decisions were respected and people were in control of their support.” from the report
Visible leadership
Inspectors found a clear management structure, good teamwork and regular checks on care quality. The manager was visible and promoted learning and improvement.
“The registered manager had a visible daily presence in the service and led very much by example.” from the report
Staffing pressure was mentioned
minorInspectors found enough staff to keep people safe, but some staff said more staff might be needed as people's needs changed. Ask how staffing levels are reviewed now.
“We could do with some more staff to meet people's changing needs. We are using the same agency staff when we need them” from the report
- 01How do you decide how many staff are needed when people's needs change?
- 02What has been learned from the medicines recording errors mentioned in the report?
- 03How would you support my relative to continue their own hobbies and interests?
- 04How do you involve families in care planning and decisions when a person's needs change?
- 05How would you support my relative's wishes and relationships if they needed end of life care?
This was an unannounced inspection that looked at all five CQC questions, including care, medicines, staffing, activities, records and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 July 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, October 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with earlier leadership changes and medicine-record gaps noted.
This was an unannounced inspection of the home on 12 and 13 September 2016. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care, looked around the home and checked care records, medicine records, staff files, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems and suitable risk assessments. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
Care plans were personal and kept up to date. People had choices about food, daily routines and activities. The home supported people to stay involved in the local community and to share their views.
The report says there had previously been several changes in leadership, but significant improvements had been made since the registered manager started eight months earlier. A medicines audit had found gaps in records, and action had been taken to improve them.
Safe staffing and medicines
Staffing levels were adjusted when people's needs changed. Inspectors found that medicines were administered, stored and recorded safely during the inspection.
“People received their medicine as prescribed and the service had safe medicine administration systems in place.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated as individuals and staff knew their communication needs and preferences. Inspectors saw warm, patient and respectful interactions.
“We observed many caring interactions between staff and the people they were supporting during our inspection.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's routines, life histories and preferences. They were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“Care plans were personalised and contained detailed daily routines specific to each person.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could take part in group and one-to-one activities based on their interests. The home also supported trips, visits and links with the local community.
“People had a range of activities they could be involved in which included group and one to one activities.” from the report
Open management
People and staff described the management as approachable and supportive. Quality checks, meetings and feedback were used to make improvements.
“The leadership created a culture of openness that made people feel included and well supported.” from the report
Earlier leadership instability
minorThe report says there had previously been several changes in leadership, which affected management stability. The current manager had been in post for eight months and inspectors found improvements.
“Previously there had been several changes in leadership which affected management stability.” from the report
- 01How are medicine administration records checked now, following the gaps found in the audit?
- 02How long has the current manager been in post, and how is leadership stability being maintained?
- 03How often will my relative's care plan be reviewed if their needs change?
- 04How will you involve my relative and our family in care planning and reviews?
- 05Which activities and community events would match my relative's interests and abilities?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the home, covering all five CQC questions and resulting in ratings for each one. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 October 2016 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 OSJCT Stirlings
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 November 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Oxfordshire
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 £980 to £1,300 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.