CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stennards Leisure Retirement Home (Mos)
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and supported by enough safely recruited staff. Medicines, infection control, risk assessments and emergency arrangements were found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- The rating improved from Requires Improvement in 2016. Staff had suitable training, people received support with food and healthcare, but some mental capacity records needed further improvement.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. People's privacy, dignity, individuality and relationships were supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's needs, likes and dislikes. People were supported with activities, community links and complaints, although complaint information and end-of-life plans needed updating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was visible and people were involved in developing the home. Audits and quality checks were in place, although some records linked to the Mental Capacity Act still needed improvement.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, with some records and planning needing improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 15 November 2018. They spoke with people living in the home, staff, visitors and a health professional. They observed daily care and reviewed medicines, care records and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were protected from abuse, received medicines safely and had enough staff support. Inspectors also found kind and respectful relationships, suitable activities and good involvement in decisions.
The Effective rating improved from Requires Improvement in 2016 to Good. Improvements had been made to mental capacity assessments and care plans. Inspectors still identified some areas to improve, including the wording and dating of some records, end-of-life planning and complaint information.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment checks and safe medicines administration. Staff understood people's risks and how to protect them.
“People were supported by sufficient staff and during the inspection, and we observed that staff were available to support people.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff spoke calmly and kindly with people. They respected privacy, dignity, personal space and important relationships.
“People's relationships with staff were positive and caring.” from the report
Choice and health support
People were supported to make choices about food and care and to access doctors, dentists and other healthcare professionals.
“People were supported to access food and drinks in line with their needs and choices.” from the report
Activities and community links
The home supported group and individual activities, including links with a local school and attendance at a pride event.
“The service had gone the extra mile to accommodate activities and build links with the local communities.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff could share their views. The home used meetings, a suggestions board, audits and quality checks to make improvements.
“A range of quality assurance and governance systems were in place and these were being developed to make further improvements.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome mental capacity assessments were not dated. The wording of some care plans also needed to make clear when relatives did not have authority to give consent.
“We discussed with the registered manager that they needed to ensure the assessments were dated.” from the report
End-of-life planning
needs fixingPeople had been asked only limited questions about their end-of-life wishes. Plans needed more detail about comfort, pain, 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
Complaint information
minorThe home had information about making a complaint, but it did not include details of other agencies people could contact if they were unhappy with the response.
“We discussed with the provider's representative that this needed to be updated with details of other agencies people could approach if they were dissatisfied with the provider response.” from the report
Privacy of information
minorInspectors found one isolated instance where personal information could be seen by others. This was dealt with immediately.
“We brought to the registered manager's attention one isolated issue of personal information being accessible to others and this was immediately addressed.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure every mental capacity assessment is dated and kept up to date?
- 02How do you record a relative's authority to agree to a person's care plan?
- 03How will you ask and record my relative's end-of-life wishes, including personal and religious wishes?
- 04Which outside agencies can we contact if we are unhappy with how a complaint is handled?
- 05What activities and community links would be suitable for my relative?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and both the premises and care provided; the previous inspection was in March 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 December 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 (Mos)
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Stennards Leisure Retirement Home (Mos) →
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 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.
- 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.