CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stanley Park Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff understood their individual risks. Inspectors found enough staff and safe recruitment, but some medicines records did not clearly show when medicines had been refused.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff understood people's health and nutritional needs and worked with healthcare professionals. People received training, support and help to achieve better health and mental health outcomes.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, respect and patience. People were supported to communicate, make choices, maintain dignity and become more independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, personalised and regularly reviewed. People were supported with their interests, relationships, communication needs and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were described as approachable, supportive and open. The provider used feedback, audits and incident reviews to improve the service, although one relative said some issues were not always communicated quickly enough.
What inspectors found, December 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some medicines records needing clearer entries.
This was the home’s first inspection since it registered. It was an unannounced visit on 25 October 2021 by one inspector. Inspectors spoke with people, staff, managers, a social worker and relatives. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and other records.
The home supports six people with learning disabilities and mental health support needs. Each person has a self-contained flat. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe recruitment, good infection control and systems for managing risks and medicines. People were supported to make choices, stay independent, maintain relationships and take part in activities.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found good-quality care and a service that was consistently managed. It was not rated Outstanding, and the report still identified some areas for improvement.
Personalised risk support
Risk plans were tailored to each person. Staff understood individual risks and aimed to avoid unnecessary restrictions.
“Risk assessments showed consideration of factors that were unique to each person.” from the report
Choice and independence
People had their own flats and were supported to make daily choices and do as much as possible for themselves.
“Having their own flats enabled people to work towards living as independently as they could, to have more choice and control over their living environment and how they spent their time.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed staff being calm, patient and reassuring. People and relatives said staff were caring and respectful.
“Staff were empathetic and understood when people might experience anxiety or find things difficult.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to keep in touch with family and friends and to take part in activities suited to their interests and abilities.
“People received support to remain heavily involved in community and family life.” from the report
Open management
Managers involved people, relatives and staff in feedback and used audits and action plans to improve the home.
“The provider had a commitment to continuous learning and improving the service.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingSome records had gaps where people had refused medicines. The manager said staff would be reminded to use the correct code, because unclear entries could increase the risk of errors.
“Some medicines records contained gaps. The registered manager confirmed these were times when people declined to take their medicines.” from the report
Information for relatives
minorOne relative said some issues were not communicated quickly enough. The report says this was improving, but it is worth checking how the home now keeps families informed.
“One relative fed back that staff did not always communicate some issues to them quickly enough, but added that this was improving and communication about other things was good.” from the report
Communal areas
minorSome corridors and stairs were described as less homely. Inspectors said this had little effect because people did not spend much time there.
“Although some parts of the service such as the communal corridors and stairs were not very homely, people did not spend much time in these areas so this did not significantly impact on their wellbeing.” from the report
- 01How do you now record and review medicines that a person refuses?
- 02How do you make sure staff understand when and why as-required medicines should be offered?
- 03How quickly will you tell relatives about incidents, concerns or changes in care?
- 04How will you support my relative to make choices and become more independent in their own flat?
- 05What activities and community links could you offer based on my relative’s interests, communication needs and relationships?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 December 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.
Every inspection of Stanley Park Road
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- December 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 January 2020.
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 Sutton
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. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.