CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Station House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safer staffing, improved medicines checks and positive leadership, after previous breaches were resolved.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. One inspector met people, observed staff interactions, spoke with relatives, staff and a visiting professional, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and quality records.
The home was rated Good overall, with Safe and Well-led both rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safer recruitment, better medicines checks and clearer risk information. Infection prevention arrangements were also found to be effective.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement, with breaches of regulations. Inspectors found that the provider had made enough improvement and was no longer in breach. The home had a relaxed atmosphere, and staff knew people well and supported their choices.
This inspection only looked at Safe and Well-led. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the last comprehensive inspection.
Safer staffing
Staff recruitment checks had improved, staffing matched people's assessed needs and staff had training for specific health and behavioural needs.
“People received the support of staff in accordance with their assessed needs.” from the report
Improved medicines safety
Medicines were stored in a quieter area, blood sugar checks before insulin were recorded, and daily and weekly checks helped identify errors quickly.
“Improvements had been made to the checks and audits carried out to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Person-centred support
People were supported to personalise their rooms, follow their interests, make choices and take part in activities and community life.
“People received care in a relaxed, homely environment and were supported to personalise their bedrooms to reflect their interests and tastes.” from the report
Positive relationships
Inspectors saw people relaxed with staff. Relatives and professionals described the atmosphere, staff and management positively.
“There was a positive atmosphere within the home.” from the report
Manager registration
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. A new manager had applied to register, but the application was still being assessed.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
Some care records needed more detail
minorThe manager found that some daily care records did not fully describe the care provided. Staff were spoken to and the report says improvements were made.
“The manager had noted that on occasions care records lacked detail about the care provided.” from the report
- 01What is the current progress of the manager's application to become registered?
- 02How do you check that staffing levels continue to match each person's assessed needs, including one-to-one support?
- 03How are medicines checks carried out, and how quickly are any errors followed up?
- 04How do you make sure daily care records contain enough detail about the care provided?
- 05What ratings were given for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the last comprehensive inspection?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the last comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 November 2022 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, February 2022
Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks with medicines, staffing, recruitment and management oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 23 November 2021. One inspector observed care, spoke with relatives, staff and professionals, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was not always safe. Staff did not always have the right training, diabetes medicines were not always given safely, recruitment checks had gaps, and staffing levels did not always support people's one-to-one needs or community access.
The home was also not consistently well-led. Audits did not reliably identify problems or make sure they were fixed. Inspectors found four legal breaches and served warning notices for each one.
The overall rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. The inspection only assessed Safe and Well-led. The other ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Detailed care planning
People had care plans and risk assessments that gave staff clear guidance about their needs.
“People had care plans and risk assessments in place which were comprehensive and reflected their needs.” from the report
Caring relationships
People appeared comfortable with staff. Relatives gave positive feedback about the staff group and the new manager.
“People appeared comfortable with staff and the new manager with lots of laughing and joking during our inspection.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment safely and supported visits during the pandemic.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Improved communication
Relatives said the new manager was accessible and that communication had improved.
“Relatives told us communication had improved at the service and the management team were accessible and responsive to them.” from the report
Unsafe medicines support
seriousStaff did not always check blood sugars before giving insulin. Medicine records were also incomplete, creating a risk that people might not receive medicines as prescribed.
“During this inspection we found staff were not consistently measuring people's blood sugars prior to administering their insulin.” from the report
Staffing and training
seriousThere were not always enough staff to support people flexibly or help them access the community. Some staff had not completed diabetes, moving and handling, restraint or safeguarding training.
“There were not always sufficient staff to meet people's one to one needs in a flexible way and to enable them to access their local community.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousRecruitment records were incomplete. Inspectors found missing identity evidence, gaps in employment histories and a reference that did not match the application.
“Systems were not in place to ensure staff were consistently recruited safely. This placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Weak management checks
needs fixingAudits had identified some problems, but action plans were missing or did not lead to effective improvements. Inspectors also found problems that the home's checks had missed.
“Quality assurance tools were either not in place or used effectively to identify where improvements were required at the service and action taken to ensure improvements are made and sustained.” from the report
- 01How do you now check blood sugars before giving insulin, and how do you review missed or incomplete medicine records?
- 02Have all staff completed diabetes, moving and handling, restraint and safeguarding training?
- 03How do you check that every new staff member has identity evidence, complete employment history and suitable references?
- 04What staffing levels are now provided when more than one person needs one-to-one support or wants to access the community?
- 05What action has been taken in response to the warning notices, and how is the manager checking that improvements are sustained?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the Effective, Caring and Responsive ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 February 2022 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 Station House
3 rated inspections over a year: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2021GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 June 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 Staffordshire
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. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.