CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stafford House Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, enough staff, safe medicines management and a clean environment. Employment histories were not always fully explored and documented, but the provider changed its procedures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the skills and qualifications needed and people received care that met their needs. Not all staff had received ongoing training, but the provider updated its training procedures and completed the relevant training during the inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as caring. Inspectors saw respectful interactions, including staff giving people time, protecting privacy and promoting dignity.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans covered people's needs, preferences and end-of-life decisions. People were offered activities and social contact, while their choice not to take part was respected.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home used care-plan reviews, audits, meetings and daily discussions to monitor quality. People, relatives and staff gave positive views about how the home was managed.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with recruitment and refresher-training records needing improvement.
This was a planned, announced comprehensive inspection on 5 and 22 October 2018. The inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and the manager. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines, training, recruitment and other records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, caring relationships, suitable care plans, good support with health needs and a clean, safe environment.
There were two recording and process weaknesses. Employment histories were not always fully checked and recorded, and not all staff had received ongoing training before the inspection. The provider changed its procedures and completed the relevant training during the inspection.
The home was already rated Good at its previous inspection. Inspectors found that the evidence still supported this rating and found no serious risks or concerns.
Enough staff
Inspectors found sufficient staff during the visit. Staff were visible in shared areas and had time to provide supervision, support and one-to-one contact.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff during our inspection visit.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff using respectful communication, touch and eye contact, and knocking before entering bedrooms.
“We observed only positive interactions between staff and people who lived Stafford House Residential Care Home.” from the report
Good care planning
Care plans covered people's health, mobility, communication, personal history and end-of-life wishes. Staff acted promptly when people's needs changed.
“When people's needs changed, this was quickly identified and prompt, appropriate action was taken to ensure people's wellbeing was protected.” from the report
Safe medicines and environment
The sample checked showed medicines were ordered, given, stored and disposed of correctly. The home was clean and tidy, and equipment was maintained.
“We looked around the home and found it was clean and tidy.” from the report
Open management
The home used audits, staff meetings, supervisions and daily handovers to monitor care and involve staff. Relatives' questionnaires were positive about the service.
“The service had systems and procedures to monitor and assess the quality of their service.” from the report
Employment histories
needs fixingRecruitment checks were completed before staff started care, but employment histories were not always fully explored and recorded. The provider changed its procedures during the inspection.
“Systems were not always implemented to ensure employment histories were fully explored and documented.” from the report
Ongoing staff training
needs fixingRecords showed that not all staff had received ongoing training during their employment. The provider updated its procedures and completed all relevant training by the end of the inspection.
“Records indicated not all staff had received ongoing training during their employment.” from the report
- 01How do you now check and record each applicant's full employment history?
- 02How do you make sure staff complete refresher training at the right time?
- 03How would you update my relative's care plan if their health, mobility or communication needs changed?
- 04What activities would be suitable for my relative, and how would you support their choice not to take part?
- 05How would you record and respect my relative's wishes about end-of-life care?
This was a scheduled comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, and all five ratings were Good; the previous overall rating was also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 November 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.
What inspectors found, February 2017
Overall rated Good, but Safe remained Requires Improvement because the home needed to show safe recruitment consistently over time.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 23 and 24 January 2017. Inspectors checked whether the home had fixed unsafe recruitment found at the previous comprehensive inspection.
Inspectors looked at three staff recruitment files, staff rotas and information about DBS checks, employment histories and references. They found that DBS checks had been completed before staff started work, and that the recruitment files contained the relevant information.
The overall rating was Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement because the CQC said it needed to see consistent good practice over time before improving that rating. The other areas were not assessed during this visit.
Checks before staff started
The home had introduced a process requiring DBS checks before staff began work.
“We noted the dates on staff DBS certificates preceded their start date.” from the report
Recruitment records
The three recruitment files inspected contained relevant information, including work histories and references.
“We looked at three staff files and noted they contained relevant information.” from the report
Safe rating remained below Good
needs fixingThe CQC did not raise the Safe rating because it needed evidence that the improved recruitment practice would continue consistently over time.
“We could not improve the rating for Safe from requires improvement because to do so requires consistent good practice over time.” from the report
Previous unsafe recruitment
seriousAt the earlier inspection, staff had started work without completed DBS checks and some application forms were incomplete. This was recorded as a breach of Regulation 19.
“We found application forms were incomplete and Disclosure and Barring Service checks (DBS) had not been obtained before staff commenced their employment.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure every new staff member has a DBS check before starting work?
- 02How do you check that application forms, employment histories and references are complete for every staff member?
- 03What changes have you made since the previous inspection to prevent unsafe recruitment?
- 04When will the next comprehensive inspection assess whether safe recruitment has remained consistent?
- 05What were the outcomes of the next planned checks on safe recruitment?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, specifically recruitment procedures; the other four question ratings and wider aspects of care were not assessed during this visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 February 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 Stafford House Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Stafford House Residential Care Home →
- February 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Stafford House Residential Care Home →
- April 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 November 2013.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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 £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.