CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stanhope Court Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, cleanliness, safe admissions, visiting and outbreak management. They noted that the recently revised policy had not yet been fully shared with all staff.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not covered by the targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Stanhope Court Residential Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements, with one policy still being rolled out.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 2 February 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control because of the COVID-19 outbreak response.
Inspectors were assured about visiting, admissions, shielding, social distancing, protective equipment, testing, cleanliness and outbreak management. They also found extra support for people during isolation, including video calls and dedicated staff time.
The home had recently updated its infection prevention and control policy, but it had not yet been fully shared with all staff. Inspectors advised the provider to develop this approach.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a standard overall rating or ratings for the other care questions.
Safe visiting and admissions
The home had arrangements for people to be admitted and for relatives to visit safely under national guidance.
“The service had procedures and protocols in place which ensured people were admitted into the service and relatives could visit safely in accordance with national guidance.” from the report
Support during isolation
People and relatives were helped to understand isolation arrangements. The home supported contact through video calls and dedicated staff time.
“People and their relatives were supported to understand the isolation processes and how the service could help to alleviate them feeling lonely” from the report
PPE and testing
Inspectors found that protective equipment was available and used correctly. Testing was in place for staff, residents and relatives.
“Personal protective equipment (PPE) was widely available and used correctly and there was an extensive testing program in place for staff, residents and relatives.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and hygienic. Changes to the lounge supported social distancing.
“The home was clean and hygienic throughout. The lounge had been extended to enable good social distancing.” from the report
Staff infection control training
Staff had infection control training, regular refresher training and links with a local infection control team.
“Staff were trained in infection prevention and control (IPC) and had frequent refresher training and guidance in COVID-19 guidelines.” from the report
Updated policy not yet shared with everyone
needs fixingThe infection prevention and control policy had been reviewed and revised, but it had not yet been fully shared with all staff. Inspectors advised the provider to develop this approach.
“The provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date and had been recently reviewed and revised, however this had not yet been fully disseminated and communicated to all staff.” from the report
- 01Has the recently revised infection prevention and control policy now been shared with every staff member?
- 02How do you check that staff understand and follow the updated infection prevention and control policy?
- 03What are the current arrangements for relatives visiting and for admitting new residents safely?
- 04How are residents, staff and relatives tested if there is a suspected infection outbreak?
- 05How do you support residents who need to isolate so they do not become lonely?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices 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, July 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with some records and training details still needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 July 2018. The inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They also observed care and checked care files, medicines, training, complaints, accidents and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, a clean environment, supportive care and good opportunities for activities and social contact.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, when it was rated requires improvement and had breached the rules about lawful consent. This inspection found that consent records and practice had improved. Some training records and care file arrangements still needed attention.
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough experienced staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment records showed appropriate checks had been completed for new staff.
“Staff rotas showed that there was always a senior care assistant on duty, with three care staff during the day and two at night.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely and records showed they were given as prescribed. Senior staff carried out regular checks and audits.
“records we looked at showed that people received their medications as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed positive interactions and staff offering people choices. Relatives said people were well cared for and supported to remain as independent as possible.
“Throughout the day we observed that interactions between staff and people who lived at the home were positive and respectful.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care files included people's histories, preferences, health information and support needs. Plans were reviewed regularly.
“The care plans were written in a person-centred style and contained detailed information about people's support needs and how their needs should be met.” from the report
Listening and improvement
The home held resident, relative and staff meetings. Audits identified areas for improvement and action plans were recorded.
“A programme of quality audits was in place and people were given the opportunity to express their views about the service at meetings of the resident and relative forum.” from the report
Training records
minorThe report says the provider's training records were not fully up to date, although care staff had relevant qualifications and training.
“Training records for the provider's programme of training were not 100% up to date” from the report
Care file structure
minorThe care files contained detailed information, but inspectors found it difficult to track assessments, risks, plans and reviews together.
“there remained room for improvement in the way that the care files were structured because it was difficult to follow through the assessments, risk assessments, plans and reviews” from the report
- 01What have you done to make sure all staff training records are now complete and up to date?
- 02How do you record the amount of fluid each person should receive and how often they should be offered drinks?
- 03How have you improved the structure of care files so staff can clearly follow risks, care plans, reviews and outcomes?
- 04How will the new manager measure whether the changes made since the previous inspection are improving people's care?
- 05How are residents and relatives' suggestions from meetings followed up and checked?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with observations, discussions and checks of care, medicines, staffing and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 July 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 Stanhope Court Residential Care Home
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
Read what inspectors found at Stanhope Court Residential Care Home →
- July 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Stanhope Court Residential Care Home →
- July 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 June 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
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Wirral
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 £1,230 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.