CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Stanley Wilson Lodge Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks such as falls, choking and poor food or fluid intake were assessed and managed. Medicines, recruitment, staffing levels, infection control and premises safety were also found to be well managed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed assessments and care plans, and staff had suitable training and support. Inspectors found good access to health professionals, appropriate consent procedures and support with food, drink and individual dietary needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's histories and preferences, encouraged independence and involved people and relatives in care decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care and activities were tailored to people's interests and needs. Inspectors found strong support with end of life care, communication needs and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- Leadership was described as exceptional. The home had a clear person-centred vision, strong governance checks, an open culture and systems for learning and continuous improvement.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Rated Good, with kind and personalised care and an Outstanding rating for leadership.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 30 July and 1 August 2019. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, rotas and management checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, good support with health and nutrition, respectful care and a wide range of personalised activities.
Well-led was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found exceptionally strong leadership, an open culture and effective checks on quality and safety. The home had learned from incidents and acted on people's suggestions.
This was an improvement in the well-led rating from Good at the previous inspection. The other four question ratings remained Good. No regulations were reported as breached.
Strong leadership
Inspectors found exceptional leadership, clear values and a strong focus on improving people's care.
“The leadership of the home was exceptional.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people's histories, likes and dislikes and used this information to respect individual choices and support independence.
“Staff had a detailed knowledge of people's histories, their likes, dislikes and how they wished to be supported.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could choose from activities inside and outside the home, including music, therapies, trips and visits from local groups.
“Staff went to exceptional lengths to ensure people had access to a wide range of activities that met their individual needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were checked, stored and administered through established systems, with audits used to identify and correct errors.
“Medicines were managed safely with regular systems of audit to identify and rectify medicines errors promptly.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean, well maintained and comfortably furnished. People also enjoyed the food.
“The home was very clean, well decorated, maintained and furnished. People enjoyed the home cooked food.” from the report
One concern about staff conduct
minorOne person raised a concern about the conduct of one staff member. Inspectors discussed it with the manager, who took appropriate action.
“Only one person expressed concern about the conduct of one individual member of staff. We discussed this with the registered manager who took appropriate action.” from the report
- 01What progress has been made with the dementia strategy, including the planned staff training and corridor changes?
- 02How do you assess staffing levels when residents' needs change, including at night?
- 03How are end of life wishes recorded and reviewed, while the home is working towards the Gold Standard Framework?
- 04How are activities planned around my relative's interests, abilities and wishes?
- 05How would you respond if my relative or our family raised a concern about a staff member's conduct?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 August 2019 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, March 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found major improvements and kind, safe care, with some small shortfalls in dining and personalisation.
This was an unannounced inspection on 31 January 2017. Inspectors followed up concerns from the previous inspection, which had rated every area Requires Improvement and found several breaches. They spoke with people, staff, visitors and a health professional, and reviewed care plans, medicines, staff records and management records.
The inspectors found significant improvements. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed, and staff understood safeguarding. People were supported with food, drink and health needs. Staff were described as kind, respectful and familiar with people's wishes.
Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed. Activities supported people's interests and well-being. The manager was visible and the home used audits, feedback and action plans to monitor quality and keep improvements going.
The overall rating and all five areas were Good. This means the inspectors found the home met the expected standard at the time of this inspection. It does not mean that every part of the service was perfect.
Staffing and safety
Inspectors found enough staff to provide safe care. They saw staff working steadily, with call bells answered promptly and people supervised appropriately.
“There were enough staff to deliver safe effective care.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and treated them as individuals. Inspectors saw care that supported dignity, independence and people's personal relationships.
“Staff were observed to be attentive and caring of people. They knew people well and engaged with them regularly.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans recorded what people needed, what they could do for themselves and how they wished to live. They were regularly checked and updated.
“Care plans Were informative .They also included information about what the person required support with and what they could do for themselves even if this fluctuated.” from the report
Activities and well-being
The home offered group and one-to-one activities, including options designed for people with dementia or sensory needs.
“Activities were provided to help keep people alert and to promote their well-being.” from the report
Improvement and oversight
The home had acted on the previous inspection's findings. The manager used audits, feedback and action plans to check that changes were made and maintained.
“The improvements in the service were clearly notable and staff were motivated and committed.” from the report
Finding bedrooms
minorSome bedroom doors did not have people's names and some personal boxes were incomplete. Inspectors said this could make it harder for some people to recognise and find their rooms.
“However some people did not have their names on their bedroom doors and the personal boxes were not complete.” from the report
Deprivation of Liberty applications
needs fixingSome applications were still awaiting approval from the local authority. The manager agreed to follow this up.
“Some applications were awaiting approval and the manager agreed to liaise with the Local Authority regarding this.” from the report
Quality survey information
minorThe home collected positive feedback, but the survey did not show how many people had responded. This made it difficult for inspectors to judge how representative the results were.
“The form did not tell us what percentage of people had been spoken with or how many respondents there were so we could not see how proportionate the results were.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure people eating in their rooms are helped promptly and do not have to wait until they fall asleep?
- 02How do you record and share fluid intake so relatives can understand how much their family member is drinking?
- 03Are picture menus now being used for people who need help understanding their meal choices?
- 04Do all bedrooms now have clear personal signs and complete memory boxes to help people recognise their rooms?
- 05Have all outstanding Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications now been followed up and approved where needed?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five key questions and checking actions from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 March 2017 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 Wilson Lodge Care Home
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
Read what inspectors found at Stanley Wilson Lodge Care Home →
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Stanley Wilson Lodge Care Home →
- September 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.