CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stella House Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with some improvements still planned for the environment.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 9 October 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They looked at care records, medicines records, staff files, audits and the building.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were treated kindly and with respect. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable care plans, activities and good links with health professionals.
The rating had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in August 2018. Some furniture had started to be replaced, and plans were in place to review carpets and redecorate in 2019.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed staff supporting people with warmth, dignity and respect.
“People told us the staff were kind and caring. During this inspection we observed the staff treat people with kindness, dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's needs, abilities, preferences and life histories. Plans were reviewed regularly and updated when needs changed.
“Care plans were reviewed monthly and also updated as people's needs changed.” from the report
Strong quality checks
The management team completed regular checks and followed up actions when problems were found. People, relatives and staff were also asked for their views.
“Where audits identified something could be improved, the registered manager and area manager created an action plan” from the report
Inclusive support
The home adapted information and activities for a person whose first language was not English. It also supported religious needs.
“The activity coordinator had translated the activity plan into the person's first language so they could choose to join in activities they were interested in” from the report
DoLS conditions were not well understood
needs fixingStaff knew who had a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation but could not explain its conditions. Inspectors also found that one condition was not being met, although the supervisory body and family had been contacted.
“Staff knew who had a DoLS in place; however, they could not tell us if people had any conditions attached to the DoLS.” from the report
Environment improvements were still pending
minorNew furniture had started to be purchased. The home also had plans to replace carpets and redecorate in 2019, so some environmental improvements had not yet been completed.
“The area manager told us they had plans in place for 2019 to look at replacing carpets and redecoration.” from the report
- 01What improvements to the furniture, carpets and decoration were completed after the inspection?
- 02How do you make sure every staff member knows about conditions attached to a person's Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation?
- 03Was the DoLS condition that was not being met later put right, and what was the outcome?
- 04How are care plans and people's changing needs reviewed in practice?
- 05How are complaints and feedback from relatives used to make changes?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 October 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.
What inspectors found, October 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but medicines records and some risk decisions were not reliable.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 8 August 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records and management documents.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in March 2017. Earlier concerns about safe care, consent, nutrition and hydration, and management checks were no longer regulatory breaches. However, some problems remained with medicine records, bedrail decisions, food and drink recording, and environmental checks.
People were seen being treated kindly and with respect. Care plans were generally detailed, complaints were handled, and staff understood people's needs. The home was rated Good for Caring, Responsive and Well-led, but Requires Improvement for Safe and Effective, giving an overall rating of Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
People told inspectors staff were kind and respectful. Staff knew people's personalities, preferences and individual needs.
“Everyone we spoke with told us they thought that the staff were kind, caring and treated them with respect.” from the report
Improved care planning
Care plans and risk assessments were clearer and more up to date than at the previous inspection. Staff knew how to respond to risks such as choking, falls and pressure damage.
“We saw clear assessments of people's risks in relation to pressure ulcers, malnutrition, moving and handling, choking and falls.” from the report
Food and drink available
People had regular access to meals, drinks and snacks. Staff understood individual dietary needs and used advice about food textures.
“We saw people had access to frequent drinks and snacks throughout the day.” from the report
Progress in management oversight
The home had introduced more regular audits and improvement plans. Staff, people and relatives said managers were approachable and communication had improved.
“It was evident the provider had worked hard to address the issues from the last inspection and given high priority to improving the rigour of the quality assurance processes in the home.” from the report
Medicine records
seriousSome handwritten medicine records did not show the amount received or two staff signatures. Records also did not always show whether medicines were given in relation to food, and the audit had not identified this.
“Medicine administration records (MARs) we looked at were up to date with no gaps in recording.” from the report
Bedrail decision
seriousOne person who said they had capacity did not want bedrails. The care plan did not explain the person's risk or how the decision to use bedrails had been reached.
“The risk assessment did not show any history or level of risk of the person falling from their bed and it was not evident how this decision had been reached.” from the report
Environmental checks
needs fixingTwo raised toilet seats were not securely fixed. One room had a strong urine smell, and some environmental audits did not show enough detail about what had been checked.
“Two raised toilet seats in use were not securely fixed to the toilet.” from the report
Activities and stimulation
needs fixingSome people said there was not much to do. People who stayed in bed did not always have enough social stimulation, although the home was working on more individual activities.
“People in their rooms did not have much social stimulation if they were confined to their bed.” from the report
- 01How are medicine timings checked and how do you make sure handwritten medicine records have the required quantities and signatures?
- 02How are people involved in decisions about bedrails, and how is their consent or refusal recorded?
- 03What has been done to fix the raised toilet seats and improve checks of the environment?
- 04What individual activities are available for people who spend most of their time in bed?
- 05Has the manager's application to become registered been completed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and checking improvements required after the March 2017 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 October 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 Stella House Residential Care Home
5 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Stella House Residential Care Home →
- October 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Stella House Residential Care Home →
- June 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 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
92 live-in carers within about an hour of Wakefield
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 £1,260 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
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.