CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stanecroft
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visitor checks, admissions, PPE, testing, cleaning and outbreak procedures. They identified improvements needed in the cleanliness of sluice rooms and storage cupboards, which were addressed immediately.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection controls, with some cleanliness improvements made during the visit.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 22 January 2021. Inspectors checked how the home prevented and controlled COVID-19 infections after receiving concerns about infection control.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using PPE safely, arranging testing, managing visitors and admissions, and following shielding and social distancing rules. The home had an up-to-date infection control policy, regular audits, increased cleaning and links with health professionals.
The inspectors found that sluice rooms and storage cupboards needed to be cleaner. The registered manager dealt with this immediately. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
COVID-19 policy and checks
The home had an up-to-date infection control policy, carried out regular audits and used visitor screening and isolation arrangements for new admissions.
“There was an up to date infection control policy in place that incorporated guidance around COVID-19.” from the report
PPE and testing
Staff were observed using appropriate PPE. Staff had weekly testing, and people living in the home also had access to regular testing.
“Staff were observed wearing appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and regular training was provided to them.” from the report
Support during the outbreak
Staff supported people with activities when family visits were not possible. The home also worked with local health professionals and Public Health England.
“Staff were seen to support people with activities to reduce the risk of social isolation.” from the report
Cleaning arrangements
Communal areas and people's rooms were clean and hygienic, with extra cleaning of frequently touched areas during the pandemic.
“The communal areas and people's rooms were clean and hygienic.” from the report
Some areas needed cleaning
minorInspectors said the sluice rooms and storage cupboards needed improvement. The registered manager addressed this immediately after the inspection.
“We identified improvements were required around the cleanliness of the sluice rooms and storage cupboards.” from the report
- 01How have you checked that the sluice rooms and storage cupboards have stayed clean since the inspection?
- 02What infection control arrangements are now in place if there is another COVID-19 outbreak?
- 03How often are staff and residents tested, and what happens when someone tests positive or has symptoms?
- 04How can residents keep in contact with family when visiting is restricted?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 February 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, November 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but the home was not yet consistently well-led.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 September 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and visiting health professionals. They observed care and lunchtime practice, and reviewed care plans, staff files, medicines records and management documents.
The home was rated Good for being safe, effective, caring and responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable care planning, kind staff and more meaningful activities. People were supported with their health, nutrition, personal choices and end of life wishes.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being well-led. The provider had given strong regional support and the culture had improved, but managers did not always ensure new systems were followed. The overall rating was Good, but further work was needed to make improvements consistent and proactive.
Kind and personal care
People received compassionate support from staff who knew their individual preferences and communicated with patience.
“People received support from staff that were kind and compassionate towards them.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were given by trained senior staff, records were checked and a stock check found that medicines matched the records.
“Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered physical, social and emotional needs, and staff responded to people's routines and changing needs.
“People experienced a personalised approach to care and staff were responsive to their changing needs.” from the report
Improved activities
People had more chances to join activities and staff found individual ways to engage people who did not want to join group sessions.
“People had greater opportunities to participate in activities of interest and staff engaged with people in a way that was meaningful to them.” from the report
Progress since the last inspection
Regional support, more structured training and better teamwork had helped create a more open culture and more personalised care.
“This has led to a much more open culture and a greater sense of personalisation across the service.” from the report
Staff deployment on one unit
seriousTwo staff supported a unit with several people who had complex and competing needs. One staff member was new, making consistently effective support difficult.
“The deployment of staff in this way, made it very difficult for the staff on this unit to deliver consistently effective support.” from the report
Risk with specialist meals
seriousA temporary kitchen worker nearly gave someone a standard meal when they needed a soft diet. The chef stopped this, but inspectors said more training and support were needed.
“We observed one member of agency staff almost give a person a standard meal, when they required a soft diet.” from the report
Checks were not always followed
needs fixingThe manager had introduced hourly communal toilet checks, but inspectors saw this did not happen and a toilet remained soiled until it was reported.
“During the inspection this did not happen and a toilet was left soiled until we brought this to the registered manager's attention.” from the report
Management was sometimes reactive
needs fixingSome issues were acted on only after they were highlighted. A concern about unsafe nail cutting was also not known to the manager or staff until inspectors raised it.
“New ways of working and learning from events now needed to be embedded and taken forward to create a service that proactively moved forward.” from the report
- 01How do you now allocate experienced staff to units where people have complex or competing needs?
- 02What checks make sure temporary and kitchen staff understand soft diets, allergies and choking risks?
- 03How do you make sure the hourly communal toilet checks and other action plans are completed?
- 04How are concerns from relatives recorded, acted on and communicated back to them?
- 05What training and checks now prevent care staff from using scissors to cut people's nails?
This inspection assessed all five CQC questions and updated the overall rating; the previous comprehensive inspection was on 23 August 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 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.
Every inspection of Stanecroft
5 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.