CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stennards Leisure Retirement Home (KN)
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- The inspection focused on infection prevention and control. Inspectors were assured about visiting arrangements, personal protective equipment, testing, social distancing, hygiene and the infection control policy.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection prevention and visiting arrangements.
The inspection took place on 11 June 2021 and was announced. It was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found good arrangements for visits. Visitors used a separate lounge, booked in advance, took a COVID-19 test and wore personal protective equipment. The area was sanitised after use.
Inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, arranged testing, supported social distancing and shielding, and kept its infection control policy up to date. Changes to the building, including new dining room flooring and a staff changing room, supported cleaning and infection control.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall rating or ratings for the five care questions.
Safer visiting
Visitors used a separate lounge, booked visits, took a COVID-19 test and wore personal protective equipment. The area was sanitised after use.
“People saw visitors in a separate lounge area that was sanitised after use.” from the report
Use of protective equipment
Staff wore personal protective equipment in line with government guidance, and signs reminded them about infection control.
“Staff wore PPE in line with government guidance.” from the report
Learning from the pandemic
The provider asked people, staff and relatives for feedback about its response to COVID-19 to help identify lessons.
“People, staff and relatives had been asked to complete a survey about how the service had responded to COVID-19.” from the report
Changes to the building
The home replaced dining room chairs and flooring so they could be cleaned thoroughly. It also installed a staff changing room.
“The provider had made changes to the environment to aid good infection control practices.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits arranged now, and what testing or personal protective equipment is required?
- 02How do you make sure the infection prevention and control policy stays up to date?
- 03How do people using the home and staff access testing when it is needed?
- 04Are the separate visiting lounge, new dining room flooring and staff changing room still being used as described in the report?
- 05What changes did you make after asking people, staff and relatives about the home's COVID-19 response?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care questions were not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 June 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, September 2018
Stennards Leisure Retirement Home (KN) was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but some records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 07 August 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, health professionals and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, complaints and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were generally safe, supported by trained staff and treated with kindness and respect. Medicines were stored securely and staff were available to meet people's needs.
Inspectors found personalised care, support with activities and links with the local community. The home had systems for handling complaints and checking quality. However, some care and consent records were incomplete, and end-of-life planning needed more development.
The rating had not changed since the previous inspection on 21 July 2015. The report says there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns at this inspection.
Staff available
Inspectors found enough staff to respond to people's needs promptly. People also said staff were usually present when they needed help.
“There is always staff around if I need them.” from the report
Good healthcare links
People's health needs were monitored and the home worked with health professionals. Visiting professionals said staff responded to changes in people's health.
“The system between the home and GP works really well.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff supported people warmly and respected their privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“People's privacy and dignity continued to be respected and promoted.” from the report
Activities and community
People were supported with group and individual activities, trips and links with the wider community, including work with a local primary school.
“This supported people to maintain links with their wider community.” from the report
Clear leadership
The home had a clear management structure, regular quality checks and a culture where people's feedback was used to make changes.
“There was a clear management structure in place.” from the report
Risk plan missing detail
needs fixingOne person's risk management plan did not explain clearly enough how staff should reduce the risk of potential self-neglect. Inspectors said staff knowledge helped keep the person safe, but the record needed correcting.
“the risk management plan in place for one person did not contain specific guidance for staff about how to support the person effectively to minimise the risk of potential self-neglect.” from the report
Consent records incomplete
needs fixingSome consent forms had not been signed. Records also did not show whether relatives had the legal authority to make decisions for people who could not sign themselves.
“Some consent forms had not been signed by people who were living at the home and we could not determine by records why people had not signed them.” from the report
End-of-life planning
needs fixingNo one was receiving end-of-life care during the inspection, but people had been asked only limited questions about their wishes. Plans needed more detail about comfort, pain relief, dignity and personal or religious wishes.
“Records showed that end of plans required some more development to ensure people were supported to be comfortable, pain free and dignified at the end of their life” from the report
- 01How do you now record and manage risks of self-neglect for each person?
- 02How do you check that consent forms are signed, or that a relative has the legal authority to give consent?
- 03How will you involve my relative and our family in care plan reviews?
- 04How do you record people's wishes about end-of-life care, including comfort, pain relief, dignity and religious or personal preferences?
- 05What activities and community links would be available for my relative based on their interests?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the overall service and all five key questions; the ratings had remained Good since the previous inspection in 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 September 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 Stennards Leisure Retirement Home (KN)
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Stennards Leisure Retirement Home (KN) →
- September 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Stennards Leisure Retirement Home (KN) →
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Birmingham
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 £950 to £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.