CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 50 Stoneygate Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risk assessments, safeguarding arrangements, recruitment checks and medicines systems were in place, although one person said staff were sometimes too busy to spare a few minutes.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and care plans were updated. Staff training and supervision supported people's needs, although some training courses had not yet been completed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. People were involved in care planning and were supported to make choices and develop independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans contained detailed information about people's needs, preferences and communication. People could take part in activities, maintain relationships, make complaints and receive support with end of life choices.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had systems to monitor quality and safety. People, relatives, staff and professionals were asked for their views, and the manager worked with other agencies.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Prime Life Limited - 50 Stoneygate Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with a few minor issues to follow up.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 September 2019. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience visited the home, observed care, spoke with six people and staff, and checked care records, medicines, staffing and quality checks.
The inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and involved in decisions about their care. Medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were generally suitable, care plans were detailed, and people were supported to build independence and access activities and healthcare.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found the home was meeting the relevant standards and providing consistently good care at the time of the inspection.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and given safely. Staff had guidance, training and competency checks.
“People were provided with their medicines in a safe way.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed staff treating people with kindness and compassion. People's privacy, dignity and choices were respected.
“We observed people were treated with kindness and compassion by the staff group.” from the report
Building independence
People were encouraged to develop practical skills such as cooking, budgeting and personal development, with the aim of supporting independent living.
“People were encouraged to develop self-help skills which included catering, budgeting and personal development to enable progression to independent living.” from the report
Detailed care planning
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, risks, communication needs and future plans. Staff showed they understood people's individual needs.
“Care plans were detailed, included risk assessments and provided staff with information based on people's personal care needs.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The manager used audits, meetings and surveys to monitor the service and make changes, including to menus and trips.
“The registered manager had auditing systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service” from the report
Some training was unfinished
needs fixingSome staff had not completed all planned training courses. The report says completion was planned within an acceptable timescale.
“Some staff had yet to complete these courses, however these were planned to be completed within an acceptable timescale following the inspection.” from the report
Staff availability at times
minorMost people and staff felt staffing levels were suitable, but one person said staff were sometimes too busy to spare a few minutes. The manager said this would be followed up.
“Sometimes the staff are too busy to spare a few minutes.” from the report
Carpeting replacement planned
minorThe manager had a plan to replace carpeting which inspectors said could create a potential contamination issue.
“The registered manager had a plan in place for the replacement of carpeting which may cause a potential contamination issue.” from the report
- 01Have all staff now completed the training courses that were outstanding at the inspection?
- 02How do you make sure staff have enough time to respond when someone needs extra support or conversation?
- 03Has the carpeting identified as a potential contamination issue been replaced?
- 04How are people supported to develop cooking, budgeting and other skills for independent living?
- 05How do you use people's feedback from meetings and surveys to make changes to the home?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection that looked at the premises and care provided and reviewed all five key questions; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 October 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, January 2017
Prime Life Limited - 50 Stoneygate Road was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but some safety and health records needed improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 8 November 2016. One inspector, a specialist adviser and an expert by experience visited the home. They spoke with nine people, staff and managers, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, complaints, incidents, audits and safety records.
The home supported 18 people at the time, in accommodation for people with specific mental health needs. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements and staff who understood safeguarding, consent and people's individual needs. Care was described as kind, respectful and tailored to people's preferences.
There were some weaknesses. A self-harm risk had not been properly recorded, some risk assessments were out of date, and window safety needed improvement. Records after healthcare appointments did not always explain changes to treatment. The provider sent information about extra window safeguards the day after the inspection.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors judged the service to be performing well at the time of this inspection, while still identifying improvements that were needed.
Kind and respectful staff
People told inspectors staff were caring and approachable. Observations showed staff offered reassurance and respected privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“We observed staff interactions with people throughout the inspection which showed that staff had been supportive and reassuring.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, wishes, life histories and aspirations. Staff used this information to provide individual support.
“Care planning was linked to people's needs which ensured care plans were individual to each person.” from the report
Support for independence
The home helped people develop skills such as cooking, budgeting, cleaning and managing medicines. Staff also supported education, employment and activities in the community.
“Staff developed some people's life skills to enable a transition back into live independently in the community.” from the report
Medicines handled safely
Inspectors found reliable arrangements for ordering, storing, giving and disposing of medicines. Staff followed written instructions and received competency checks.
“We saw there were reliable arrangements for ordering, storing, administering and disposing of medicines.” from the report
Listening to feedback
People, relatives and professionals were invited to give feedback. The provider used this feedback to arrange more activities outside the home.
“We saw the feedback had been adopted by the provider, where more activities were arranged out of the home.” from the report
Self-harm risk was not fully recorded
seriousOne person's records said they still had thoughts of harming themselves or others, but there was no risk assessment or support plan to reduce the risk. The manager said this was a historic risk, but the care plan had not been updated.
“there was no risk assessment or support plan in place to minimise this risk.” from the report
Some risk assessments were out of date
needs fixingRisk assessments were meant to be reviewed every six months, but some had not been updated within that period. Some nutritional assessments for people with diabetes were also incomplete.
“Not all risk assessments we saw had been reviewed in this time frame.” from the report
Window safety needed improvement
seriousSome window sills were low and the precautions in place still left people at risk of tripping, falling or being cut by broken glass. The provider reported that extra safeguards had been added the following day.
“still left people at risk from, for example, tripping or falling onto the window and suffering cuts from broken glass.” from the report
Healthcare records were not always clear
needs fixingRecords after health appointments did not always explain changes to people's care. One record said medication had been stopped without saying which medicines, which could have caused health problems.
“The records did not continue to explain which medicines had been stopped.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure every risk assessment is reviewed within the required six months?
- 02How are self-harm risks recorded, monitored and shared with all staff?
- 03What safeguards are now in place for the low window sills, and have they been checked since the inspection?
- 04How do you record and communicate medication or other treatment changes after health appointments?
- 05How do you support each person to develop skills for living independently in the community?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions, including care records, medicines, staffing, activities, complaints and management checks. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 January 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 50 Stoneygate Road
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicester
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 £1,270 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Tino was the most wonderfully rounded, empathetic and intuitive person. He not only developed a great relationship with Neville but also had a great working relationship with our existing carer.”
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.