CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stanbridge House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control during a Covid-19 outbreak. They were assured about PPE, testing, cleaning, visiting arrangements, social distancing and admission procedures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection, although relatives and professionals gave positive feedback about care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Stanbridge House: inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection controls were in place after a Covid-19 outbreak.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 04 February 2021. It followed concerns about infection control during a Covid-19 outbreak. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, rather than the whole service.
Inspectors saw staff using personal protective equipment correctly. They found regular testing, cleaning of high-touch areas, social distancing arrangements and procedures for visitors and new admissions. They were assured that the home was following infection control guidance.
Relatives and professionals spoke positively about the care and communication. The home had previously been rated Good in August 2018, but this inspection did not give a new rating. Its overall status and Safe rating are recorded as inspected but not rated.
PPE and staff training
Staff were observed using PPE in line with government guidance. They had received training about putting PPE on and taking it off.
“During our inspection we observed staff using PPE in accordance with government guidelines.” from the report
Testing and outbreak management
People using the service and staff were having regular Covid-19 tests. Inspectors were assured that the home understood the testing advice during an outbreak.
“We were assured that the provider was accessing testing for people using the service and staff.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors saw deep cleaning taking place and found records showing regular cleaning of high-touch areas. Communal seating had been arranged to support social distancing.
“On the day of inspection, we observed deep cleaning in process and the service appeared clean and hygienic.” from the report
Family communication
Relatives were kept updated and people were supported to maintain contact through technology, window visits and garden visits where possible.
“People were supported to have alternative contact with relatives through technology and video calls.” from the report
Staff property and rest breaks
minorInspectors signposted the provider to current guidance so its approach to staff property and rest breaks could be developed. The report says immediate action was taken.
“Following the inspection, we signposted the provider to current guidance to develop their approach to managing staff property and rest breaks” from the report
- 01What infection control arrangements are currently used for visitors, including checks and information before visits?
- 02How are new admissions tested and supported during any isolation period?
- 03How often are residents and staff tested, and how are positive or suspected cases managed?
- 04How do staff receive training and supplies for using PPE safely?
- 05What changes were made to staff property and rest-break arrangements after the inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe during a Covid-19 outbreak; it did not assess the whole Safe question or the other four key questions, and the previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 March 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, August 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home's quality checks and records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 7 June 2018. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care records, medicines, staffing, training, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, supported by enough trained staff, treated with kindness and dignity, involved in their care, and offered personalised support and activities.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Quality checks did not always identify missing detail in medicines guidance and records about people's capacity to make decisions. The overall rating remained Good, and the home had also been rated Good at the previous inspection in January 2016.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw warm and respectful interactions. Staff supported privacy, dignity, independence and personal choice.
“People were cared for by kind, attentive and caring staff.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's communication, health, personal care, interests and life history. People and relatives were involved in planning and reviews.
“Care plans were personalised and contained basic details of social interests, communication needs, emotional needs, mobility, personal care and health needs to guide staff on how to provide personalised care and support.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough suitably experienced staff. Staff received relevant training, supervision and support for people's needs, including dementia and end of life care.
“People were cared for by staff that knew them well, had received training and had the skills to meet their needs.” from the report
Activities and community links
People had daily group and individual activities, including music, exercise, outings and visits. They were supported to spend time in the wider community.
“There were planned group and individual activities for each day including yoga, musical items, exercises, entertainers, cards, bingo and bus outings.” from the report
Medicines guidance was incomplete
needs fixingSome records did not give staff enough detail about as-required pain medicine or current warfarin instructions. Inspectors said this gap could have put someone at risk, although they found no evidence of inaccurate doses or harm.
“This gap could have placed the person at risk of not receiving their medicines safely or suitable information being available to other health professionals.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingQuality checks did not always identify whether capacity assessments and decisions had been properly recorded, including where capacity might fluctuate or a Lasting Power of Attorney was involved.
“This placed people whose capacity could fluctuate at risk of their rights in relation to making decisions not being fully protected.” from the report
- 01How have you improved the recording of as-required medicines guidance since the inspection?
- 02How do you make sure current warfarin doses and times are available to staff and health professionals?
- 03How do you record mental capacity assessments when a person's capacity may fluctuate?
- 04How do you record decisions where a relative has Lasting Power of Attorney?
- 05How are quality audits now checking medicines and mental capacity records?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 August 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 Stanbridge House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,020 to £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 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.