CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stanway Villa
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Stanway Villa: inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 controls, with some face visor and hand-hygiene practice needing further work.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 4 February 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured about visitor safety, shielding and social distancing, safe admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning, the layout of the home and the infection control policy. Staff also helped people keep in touch with relatives and understand the pandemic.
Inspectors were only partly assured that outbreaks could be prevented or managed effectively. They said the home needed more understanding about using, cleaning and storing face visors, and about keeping to national guidance on bare below elbows for hand hygiene.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide an overall rating or ratings for most areas of care.
Understanding people’s communication
Staff understood people’s individual communication needs and used this to explain the pandemic and reduce anxiety.
“Staff had a good understanding of people's individual communication needs.” from the report
Keeping in touch
Staff supported people to stay in contact with their relatives during the pandemic.
“Staff were supporting people to keep in contact with their relatives.” from the report
Testing and prevention
The home had regular testing for staff and people living there, and acted on the results. Inspectors were also assured about PPE, cleaning and visitor controls.
“Systems were in place to minimise the risk / detect COVID-19 coming into the service.” from the report
Support for staff
The provider kept staff updated and offered daily video calls where they could discuss worries and issues.
“All staff were invited to attend the provider's daily video calls, used as a forum for staff to discuss any issues or worries.” from the report
Face visors and hand hygiene
needs fixingInspectors were only partly assured that outbreaks could be prevented or managed effectively. They identified a need for better understanding of face visor use, cleaning and storage, and of the bare-below-elbows guidance.
“Further understanding is required in the use, cleaning and storage of face visors and maintaining national guidance on 'bare below elbows' to support good hand hygiene.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to the use, cleaning and storage of face visors since this inspection?
- 02How do you now make sure staff follow the bare-below-elbows guidance for hand hygiene?
- 03How often are staff and residents tested, and how do you act on test results?
- 04How do you support residents to understand infection control information and keep in contact with their relatives?
- 05What arrangements are in place to prevent visitors bringing infections into the home?
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care domains were not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 March 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, August 2019
Stanway Villa is rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with fire safety work still in progress.
This was an unannounced inspection over 13 and 20 June 2019. One inspector spoke with three people, two relatives, the manager and two care staff. They also observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment, training, complaints and quality records.
The home supported seven people with learning disabilities, autism and/or physical disabilities. Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff, safe medicines practice, good healthcare support and care that promoted choice, dignity and independence.
The home was clean, welcoming and well managed. People had personalised support, activities and help to develop independent living skills. Communication information was available in pictures and easy-read formats.
The overall rating and all five areas were Good. The previous inspection rated the home Requires Improvement, with breaches of regulations. Inspectors found improvements had been made and that the home was no longer in breach.
Personalised support
Care plans were detailed and centred on each person's needs, preferences and communication style. People were supported to make choices and build everyday skills.
“People received care and support that was planned and centred on their individual and specific needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff had caring relationships with people and supported their dignity, privacy and independence. The atmosphere was calm and welcoming.
“Staff had developed positive and caring relationships with the people they supported.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Inspectors found suitable recruitment checks, staffing that changed with people's needs and medicines that were administered safely.
“There were robust systems in place to help ensure medicines were managed safely, to detect errors and take prompt action if any errors were found.” from the report
Good healthcare support
Staff worked with healthcare professionals and acted promptly when people's health needs changed. People had health checks and hospital passports.
“They accessed support if people's needs increased or mental health deteriorated.” from the report
Improved management
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Quality checks were regular and used to identify actions and protect people.
“A range of audits to check and assess the quality and safety of the service were regularly carried out.” from the report
Fire safety work was unfinished
needs fixingAt the inspection, work was still under way to address problems found by a fire risk assessment. Ask for confirmation that this work was completed and independently checked.
“At the time of our inspection work was in progress to address failings found by a fire risk assessment by upgrading the environment to keep people safe and follow fire safety regulations.” from the report
Larger than current guidance
minorThe home was registered for up to eight people and was supporting seven. Inspectors said it was larger than current best practice guidance, although they found its design and setting reduced the negative impact.
“The service was a larger home, bigger than most domestic style properties.” from the report
- 01Has all the work identified by the fire risk assessment been completed, and when was it last checked?
- 02How do staffing levels change when people's support needs or activities change?
- 03How are people supported to build independent living skills and take positive risks?
- 04How will you make sure communication information remains available in the formats each person understands?
- 05What improvements have been made since the 2019 inspection?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that assessed all five CQC questions, after the previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 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.
Every inspection of Stanway Villa
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 November 2010.
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.