CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stanmore House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found good risk assessments, safe recruitment, enough staff, safe medicines systems and effective infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had personalised assessments and support plans. Staff were trained and supervised, and people were supported with food, exercise, healthcare and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were supported to express their views, make day-to-day choices, maintain relationships and build independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support plans reflected people's communication needs, life histories, interests and preferences. People were supported to take part in chosen activities and to raise complaints or concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive, inclusive and person-centred culture. Managers used audits, feedback, supervision and incident reviews to monitor and improve the service.
What inspectors found, October 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with strong support for choice and independence.
The inspection visit took place on 27 September 2023. One inspector spoke with two people living there, two relatives, the registered manager, the deputy manager and two support workers. The inspector also reviewed care plans, staff files, training records, safety checks and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, staff understood their needs, medicines were managed safely and there were enough staff to support activities and visits.
People were supported to make choices, keep relationships, attend activities and develop independence. Relatives were positive about the care. The home had a positive, person-centred culture and worked with health and social care professionals.
The rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, which was published on 7 November 2017. CQC said it would continue to monitor information about the home and decide when to inspect again.
Safe staffing and risk support
There were enough staff, including for one-to-one support. Risks were assessed and staff knew how to support people safely and with the least restriction possible.
“The service had enough staff, including for one-to-one support for people to take part in activities and visits how and when they wanted.” from the report
Personalised care
Support plans included people's needs, aspirations, communication methods, life histories and interests. Staff reviewed plans with people, relatives and others involved in their care.
“People had care and support plans that were personalised, holistic, strengths-based and reflected their needs and aspirations.” from the report
Choice and independence
People made decisions about their routines and how they spent their time. Staff supported people to try new experiences, develop skills and remain connected with family and friends.
“People had the opportunity to try new experiences, develop new skills and gain independence.” from the report
Activities and community links
People were supported to take part in activities they chose, including meals out, holidays, exercise classes, worship and family visits.
“People were supported to participate in their chosen social and leisure interests on a regular basis.” from the report
Positive management
Inspectors found an open and person-centred culture. Managers used feedback, audits, supervision and learning from incidents to oversee care.
“There was a positive culture at the service, which was inclusive, and person centred, promoting positive outcomes for people.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you adapt the support plan to my relative's communication needs, preferences and life history?
- 02How would you support my relative to take part in their chosen activities, visits and community life?
- 03How do you review medicines, including as-required medicines, and avoid using medicines to control behaviour inappropriately?
- 04How do you support people when they become emotionally distressed, and how do you keep any restrictions to a minimum?
- 05How will you involve my relative, our family and health professionals in reviewing their care?
The inspection considered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control, and the home said its premises and care were both looked at; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 October 2023 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 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and maintenance issues to address.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 26 and 28 September 2017. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. The inspector spoke with people living in the home, a person receiving personal care elsewhere, staff, relatives and managers. They also checked care records, staff records, audits and policies.
The home supported three people with learning disabilities who might also have mental health needs. Inspectors found that people felt safe and were treated with kindness and respect. Staff understood people's needs, supported their choices and helped them take part in activities and maintain relationships.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that the home remained Good, as it had been at the previous inspection. They also identified some issues, including incomplete records about responses to incidents, one prescribed medicine not being in stock, and repairs needed in the upstairs bathroom.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding and knew how to report concerns about possible abuse.
“People we spoke with told us that they felt safe living in the home.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw friendly, considerate interactions. Staff listened to people, gave them time and supported their choices.
“We saw positive interactions between staff and people. Staff had a positive rapport with people and engaged with them in a friendly and caring manner.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, needs and goals. People were involved in decisions about their care and daily lives.
“The care plans showed that people had contributed to their care plan and been fully involved in decisions made about their care and other aspects of their lives.” from the report
Activities and community life
People chose what they wanted to do, including shopping, eating out, cinema visits and day trips. The home had a vehicle to support activities and appointments.
“People were supported to maintain, develop and pursue their interests.” from the report
Supportive management
Inspectors found clear leadership, good communication and regular quality checks. Relatives and staff said managers were approachable and kept them informed.
“There was a clear management structure with the registered manager/nominated individual running the service with support from the deputy manager.” from the report
Incident records did not show learning
needs fixingThere had been several incidents involving verbal and physical abuse towards staff. Management said incidents were reviewed, but records did not show the action taken or how repeated incidents would be reduced.
“But records were not in place to demonstrate this and to show the action taken by management to minimise similar incidents occurring.” from the report
Bathroom needed repair
minorThe upstairs bathroom looked tired and the grouting around the bath needed repair. The registered manager said action would be taken.
“The upstairs bathroom was 'tired' looking and grouting surrounding the bath was in need of repair.” from the report
Computer was not working
minorA computer used by people was not working during the inspection. Managers were aware and said they would resolve the problem.
“A person told us that currently the computer used by people using the service was not working.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to record and review incidents, especially repeated verbal or physical abuse towards staff?
- 02Is every prescribed medicine for use when needed now kept in stock, and how is this checked?
- 03Has the upstairs bathroom grouting been repaired, and how do you monitor maintenance issues?
- 04Is the computer used by residents now working?
- 05How are residents and relatives involved in reviewing care plans, goals and daily activities?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five areas of Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 November 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 Stanmore House
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 February 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Harrow
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 £1,330 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
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.