CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Staverton
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, premises safety, recruitment and medicines were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care was based on assessments and staff knew people's needs. Training was mostly up to date, but some refresher training was overdue and formal staff supervision had fallen behind.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with care, kindness, respect and dignity. Staff knew people's preferences and supported privacy, independence and individual cultural or spiritual needs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was personalised to people's needs and preferences. People had activities, community involvement and opportunities to choose holidays, and complaints were recorded with actions taken.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager, up-to-date records and regular audits. People and staff were involved in the running of the home, and community professionals viewed its leadership positively.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but staff supervision had fallen behind.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 16 May 2018. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, staff, managers and community professionals. They also checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, training records, safety checks, complaints and management records.
The home supported up to 14 people with learning disabilities and/or autistic spectrum disorder. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported by staff who knew them well. Medicines were handled safely, risks were assessed, and people were supported to make choices and take part in activities.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found the home was meeting the regulations and providing a good standard of care at the time of this inspection. The previous overall rating was also Good, so the rating did not change.
Safe medicines practice
Only trained and assessed staff administered medicines. Records were current and checks were made to give the right medicine to the right person at the right time.
“Medicines administration records were up to date and had been completed by the staff administering the medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Inspectors saw caring, friendly and respectful interactions. Staff knew people well and supported their privacy, dignity and independence.
“People's wellbeing was protected and all interactions observed between staff and people living at the service were caring, friendly and respectful.” from the report
Personalised activities
People could choose activities, try new things, work in local venues and plan a holiday each year.
“People could choose what they wanted to do and were also able to try out new activities when identified.” from the report
People had a voice
People could make suggestions through meetings and individual discussions. Their ideas had led to changes at the home.
“People were listened to and had a voice.” from the report
Good oversight
The manager and trustees carried out regular checks, and records and audits inspectors saw were up to date.
“The provider had an effective audit system in place.” from the report
Staff supervision had fallen behind
needs fixingThe manager said formal supervision meetings had fallen behind over the previous 12 months. Plans were in place to increase them, but the report does not say that the backlog had been fully cleared.
“The registered manager told us that, ideally, she would like those meetings to be every eight weeks but that they had fallen behind over the past 12 months.” from the report
Communication information was still being updated
minorThe home was reviewing care plans so people's communication needs would be recorded in line with the required standard. Ask whether this work has now been completed.
“The service was in the process of reviewing and updating people's care plans.” from the report
- 01How often do staff now receive formal supervision, and has the previous backlog been cleared?
- 02Have all staff completed any refresher training that was overdue at the inspection?
- 03Do current care plans fully record each person's communication needs?
- 04How are people and families involved in reviewing care plans and risk assessments?
- 05How are activities, work opportunities and holidays matched to each person's current interests and abilities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five questions and the overall rating; the report says the previous overall rating was also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 June 2018 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 Staverton
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 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
78 live-in carers within about an hour of Wokingham
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. 71 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“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.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.