CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stanbeck Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective risk management, safe medicine administration, safe recruitment, safeguarding arrangements and improved fire safety. They recommended better medicine administration records because medicine profiles explaining why people took medicines were missing.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear leadership, a positive and person-centred culture, good communication with staff and positive partnership working. Some new policy and management recording systems were not yet fully embedded.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Stanbeck Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with medicine information and some management records still needing improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 11 and 17 July 2023. One inspector and one Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff, health professionals and local authority professionals. They also checked care plans, medicine records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall, and Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, risks were managed, medicines were given as prescribed, staff were recruited safely and fire safety had improved. People and relatives generally said they felt safe and were happy with the care.
The inspection found that the home had improved since the previous Requires Improvement rating in 2022. The provider was no longer in breach of regulations. However, there was no information explaining why people took each medicine, and some new quality systems and records were not yet fully established. One recommendation was made about medicine record-keeping.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices and have control over their lives. Their care was described as person-centred and respectful of their rights.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests;” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff who gave medicines were trained and checked as competent. People received medicines as prescribed and stock records matched the administration records.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and stock counts matched administration records.” from the report
Fire safety improvements
The home had invested in fire safety. New fire doors, a new fire panel and evacuation zones were in place, with checks and drills completed.
“New fire doors and a new fire panel had been installed.” from the report
Kind and inclusive culture
Inspectors saw staff and managers speaking to people kindly and at their level. Relatives and professionals gave largely positive feedback about the home.
“We observed care assistants and managers bending down to talk to people at their level with kindness and clarity.” from the report
Missing medicine information
minorMedicine profiles were not in place. This meant staff did not have information readily available about why people were taking their medicines, although other guidance was available.
“This meant staff did not have information to hand to inform them of the reasons the people were taking their medicines, although all other guidance was available.” from the report
New management systems still bedding in
needs fixingNew systems for reviewing policies and recording provider and manager meetings had been introduced, but they were not yet fully established. The home was asked to continue improving this area.
“There was evidence the written records were now being kept, although this was not yet embedded.” from the report
- 01How do you now record and review the reason each person takes every medicine?
- 02How will you make sure the new policy review system stays up to date?
- 03How are provider and manager meetings now recorded and followed up?
- 04What improvements have been made to fire safety since the inspection, and how often are drills and checks completed?
- 05Which ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection, and when will each area next be reviewed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the last comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 September 2023 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, September 2022
Stanbeck Residential Care Home is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found serious fire safety and medicines problems, and weak oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 15 July and 10 August 2022. It began as a targeted check after concerns about risk management, staffing and bed rails. It was widened to include Safe and well-led after inspectors found fire safety concerns.
Inspectors found people were at risk because fire safety was not managed effectively. Fire doors were held open, the building did not have proper fire compartmentation, and the evacuation plan and staff training were not adequate. Medicines systems, some diabetes risk records and staff recruitment records were also incomplete.
The provider did not have a proper system to check the quality and safety of the home. This meant important problems had not been identified. People and relatives nevertheless spoke positively about staff and their care. The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff on shift and a well-established team with experience of providing consistent support.
“There were enough staff on shift to safely support people.” from the report
Positive staff relationships
People were satisfied with their care and described staff positively. The registered manager was actively involved in people's daily care.
“People were satisfied with their care and the approach by staff to providing this.” from the report
Action began during inspection
The registered manager changed fire evacuation arrangements, briefed staff and started updating medicines records after inspectors raised concerns.
“Following out feedback and feedback from the fire and rescue service, the registered manager had made changes to fire evacuation arrangements and briefed staff on these.” from the report
Fire safety
seriousFire safety arrangements did not adequately protect people. Fire doors were held open, there was no proper compartmentation, and the evacuation plan and training were not sufficient.
“Fire safety was not effectively managed to keep people safe.” from the report
Medicines systems
seriousMedicines waiting for disposal were not properly recorded. Staff also lacked written guidance for some medicines given only when needed.
“Medicines waiting for disposal were not recorded in-line with guidance to keep track of these medicines and protect people from their misuse.” from the report
Incomplete risk records
seriousSome risks were not recorded clearly in care plans. This included diabetes risks for a person prescribed insulin, and there was no risk assessment supporting the use of CCTV.
“Risks linked to people's diabetes had not always been recorded to show how these had been assessed, monitored and reduced.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe provider had not established effective checks to identify and correct problems with fire safety, medicines, records, incidents, recruitment and training.
“There was no established quality assurance system. The provider had not completed any quality assurance checks.” from the report
Limited learning from incidents
needs fixingAccidents and incidents were recorded, but they were not analysed for patterns or wider learning. It was also unclear whether care records and risk assessments were updated afterwards.
“Accidents and incidents were not analysed by the registered manager or provider to look for any trends and patterns and consider any wider learning needed.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the fire doors, fire compartmentation, evacuation plan and staff fire training?
- 02How are medicines waiting for disposal now recorded, and where are the instructions for medicines given only when needed?
- 03How are diabetes risks and other individual risks recorded, reviewed and shared with staff?
- 04What quality checks are now being completed by the provider, and how are actions followed up?
- 05How are accidents and incidents analysed for patterns, and how are care plans updated afterwards?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and well-led, after a targeted inspection was widened because of fire safety concerns; the other key question ratings carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 September 2022 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 Stanbeck Residential Care Home
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Stanbeck Residential Care Home →
- September 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Stanbeck Residential Care Home →
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Cumberland
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.
8 can care for a couple. 9 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.