CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Stamford Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Stamford Care Home was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind care and good leadership, but medicines were not always managed safely.
Inspectors visited without giving notice on 10 and 12 August 2021. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Staff were caring and compassionate, people had activities and personalised care, and relatives generally spoke positively about the staff. The home also had enough staff and strong infection control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Safe care was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found gaps and errors in medicines records, including a controlled medicine recorded as given when it had not been. Some daily care records and care plans also needed improvement. Responsive and well-led care were rated Good.
Kind and compassionate staff
Inspectors saw caring staff supporting people. Relatives also spoke positively about the friendly staff team.
“We observed people to be cared for by staff who were caring and compassionate.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels met people's needs. People were supported without being rushed.
“During our visit we saw staff supporting people in an unrushed manner and they were able to respond to requests for support.” from the report
Infection control
The home had regular testing, extra cleaning and visiting precautions. Inspectors found that COVID-19 cases did not spread within the home.
“There were no significant outbreaks at the service throughout the pandemic and any positive cases of COVID-19 within the home were contained and infection did not spread.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were offered varied activities, including quizzes, exercise and music. Staff helped people stay active and connected during the pandemic.
“On the day of the inspection, we observed an animated and engaging staff and activities team engage people in a variety of activities” from the report
Open management
The management team worked with inspectors and said it would act on the issues found. Quality checks, staff meetings and professional links were in place.
“We found the management team open and responsive during the inspection.” from the report
Medicines records and administration
seriousMedicines records had gaps and errors. One controlled medicine was recorded as given although it had not been, and stock counts did not always match the records.
“Medicines Administration Records (MAR's) were not always completed appropriately or signed for when the medicine was given.” from the report
Daily care records
needs fixingSome records for fluids, nutrition and pressure care were incomplete or not filled in at the time care was delivered. This made it harder to confirm that care had been provided.
“Some fluid charts, when checked by the inspection team in the afternoon of the inspection visit, had no entries for the day up to that point” from the report
Some care plan details
needs fixingSome care plans did not explain enough about how certain medical conditions affected people or how staff should respond if they became unwell.
“We found some instances where care plans did not always provide enough information to staff on how certain medical conditions affected people” from the report
Communication with relatives
minorRelatives gave mixed feedback about updates during visiting restrictions. Some felt communication could have been better.
“We received mixed feedback from relatives around their experiences of contact from the service during periods of visiting restrictions.” from the report
- 01What has changed in medicines administration since inspectors found gaps, incorrect signatures and stock balances that did not match records?
- 02How do you now check that controlled medicines and as-needed medicines are given and recorded correctly?
- 03How do you make sure fluid, nutrition and pressure-care records are completed at the time care is provided?
- 04How have you improved care plans where medical conditions were not explained in enough detail?
- 05How will you keep relatives updated and respond to concerns about communication?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at infection control as part of Safe and reviewed the overall service; the report gives ratings for Safe, Responsive and Well-led, while the other two key question ratings are not given. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 October 2021 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 Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with some care plans needing more detail.
This was an unannounced inspection of the home on 19 and 20 February 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and a visiting health professional. They also reviewed care files, medicines records, staff records, rotas, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines were managed safely, staffing was sufficient during the inspection, care was personalised, and people were treated with kindness and dignity.
There had been serious medicines problems at the previous inspection in February 2017, including a breach of Regulation 12 and a warning notice. A later focused inspection found improvements, and this inspection found those improvements had been maintained. Inspectors did identify that two care plans did not contain enough detail about supporting people with learning disabilities and behaviour that challenged.
Medicines safety improved
Inspectors found that the serious medicines problems identified in 2017 had been corrected and that the improvements had continued. Records, storage, stock checks and audits were found to be accurate and secure.
“At this inspection, we were satisfied that improvements to how the service managed medicines had been implemented and sustained.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and staff knew them well. Inspectors observed staff offering reassurance and responding calmly to people's distress.
“We observed many kind and caring interactions between staff and people throughout the two days of the inspection.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans usually included people's life histories, choices, likes and dislikes. Staff showed that they understood how people wanted to be cared for.
“Care plans were found to be detailed and person centred and gave information about people's likes and dislikes, choices and preferences.” from the report
Activities and involvement
People could take part in a range of activities, including music, entertainment, trips and themed days. People and relatives were also given ways to provide feedback.
“The provider employed three dedicated activities co-ordinators who were enthusiastic about ensuring they made the days at the home enjoyable for the people living there.” from the report
Good management checks
The home used audits, meetings, night visits and reviews to monitor safety and care. Complaints, incidents and feedback were used to identify lessons and improvements.
“Quality assurance measures were in place with regular audits carried out by the registered manager, deputy manager and provider.” from the report
Two care plans lacked detail
needs fixingTwo care plans for people with learning disabilities did not give enough written guidance about how staff should reassure and calm the person. Staff knew what to do, but this knowledge was not recorded for less experienced staff.
“However, we found that for two people, with learning disabilities, the care plans lacked the detailed support the person needed.” from the report
Limited newspaper choice
minorSome people said they would like a more varied choice of newspapers.
“Some people told us they would like access to a more varied selection of newspapers.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure medicines remain safely stored, recorded and given as prescribed?
- 02How will you make sure care plans contain enough detail about how to support people with learning disabilities or behaviour that challenges?
- 03How many staff are normally on duty on each floor, and how often do staff changes affect the people living here?
- 04How are families told about changes in health, care needs or treatment?
- 05What activities and newspaper choices are currently available for people who live here?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the nursing care home and covered all five CQC questions, including care, premises and management arrangements. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 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 Stamford Care Home
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvement
- March 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 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.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 October 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Enfield
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. 79 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Over the time he spent with them he got to know our parents very well and became like part of the family, even joining in family celebrations.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.