CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Stibbs House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were protected from avoidable harm. Medicines, safeguarding, infection control, risk assessments and health and safety checks were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not assessed or newly rated in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed or newly rated in this inspection, although inspectors described care as respectful, person-centred and supportive of dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed or newly rated in this inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found strong management oversight, up-to-date audits, regular staff meetings and an open approach to communication with relatives and professionals.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Stibbs House rated Good; inspectors found safe, respectful care and improvements since 2019.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 3 June 2021. Inspectors spoke with three people staying at the home, five relatives and five staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and well-led were both rated Good. Inspectors found that medicines, infection control, safeguarding and health and safety checks were managed properly. Staff supported people respectfully and encouraged choice and independence.
The previous rating in 2019 was Requires Improvement. Inspectors found improvements in infection control and management oversight, and said the home was no longer in breach of regulations.
Safe medicines
Medicines were given safely. Records showed whether medicines had been given or why they had not been given.
“Medicine administration records had been completed fully and the records showed people had been given their medicines, or the reasons why they had not been given.” from the report
Infection control
The home had improved its infection control since the previous inspection. Inspectors were assured about testing, protective equipment, visiting and outbreak procedures.
“At our last inspection we had found people were not protected against the risk of infection. Actions had been taken and we found that people were now protected against the risk of infection.” from the report
Choice and independence
The care model promoted choice, control and independence. Inspectors found that people were encouraged to make their own decisions.
“We found that the model of care was based on promoting choice, control and independence.” from the report
Management oversight
Management audits were current and included actions and target dates. The home also used health and safety checks to identify and address risks.
“There was robust managerial oversight of the quality of service.” from the report
Respectful support
Staff understood people's individual needs and spoke with them respectfully. Inspectors found that care promoted dignity, privacy and human rights.
“Staff spoke to each person in a very respectful engaging way.” from the report
Staffing availability
minorA relative said staff shortages had meant two people could not stay at the same time. Inspectors found enough staff during the visit and saw that people received help promptly, but this is worth checking for your relative's needs.
“They have had staff shortages as I have been told.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure there are enough staff when several people need support at the same time?
- 02How would staff support my relative to make choices and become more independent?
- 03How are medicines checked and recorded when a medicine is not given?
- 04What infection control and visiting arrangements are currently in place?
- 05How will you keep me informed if my relative becomes unwell or there is an accident or incident?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection focused on Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not newly rated and the previous comprehensive inspection was in 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 July 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, May 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care but infection control and quality checks were not reliable.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 6 March 2019. It followed concerns raised by staff. One inspector spoke with staff and managers and reviewed care records, staff files, incident records, medicines information, complaints, policies and audits.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that infection control was not effective. They also found that checks by the provider had not identified or prevented some problems with cleaning and infection control.
Inspectors also found positive areas. Staff were kind, knew people well and supported their independence. Risks, medicines, staffing and recruitment were generally managed safely. The home had one breach of Regulation 17 on good governance. The provider was asked to send a report explaining how it would improve.
Kind and consistent staff
People were supported by a stable team who knew them well and had good relationships with them.
“People were supported for by a consistent staff team who were kind and caring.” from the report
Risk management
Inspectors found detailed risk assessments and regular checks of the environment, equipment and fire safety arrangements.
“Risks to people were assessed thoroughly and detailed plans were in place to reduce risks.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were stored and given safely. Staff were trained and their competence was checked regularly.
“People received their prescribed medicines from staff who had received training in the safe administration of medicines” from the report
Flexible support
Staff understood people's preferences and supported people to maintain independence and work towards returning home where appropriate.
“People received care and support that was flexible and responsive to their needs.” from the report
Infection control
seriousInspectors found an unclean and cluttered sluice room, weak arrangements for separating clean and dirty laundry, shared toiletries and other areas that could not be cleaned effectively. They said these problems created a risk of cross-contamination and infection.
“All the above issues presented a risk of cross contamination and the spread of infection.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe provider's checks had not identified or prevented the infection control problems. Cleaning checks were missed, and action plans were not always marked as completed.
“The quality assurance systems used by the provider had not ensured that their infection control policies and procedures were up to date.” from the report
- 01What infection control audits have been completed since the inspection, and what did they find?
- 02How are you now checking that the sluice room, bathrooms, kitchen and laundry areas are clean and safe?
- 03How do you record and monitor action plans so that completed improvements can be checked?
- 04What work was completed after the water leaks, and how was disruption to people's stays managed?
- 05How do you make sure the registered manager has enough time to check cleaning records and other important documents?
This was an unannounced focused inspection prompted by whistleblowing concerns and it covered the concerns found under Safe and Well-led; it did not provide separate ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 May 2019 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 Stibbs House
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 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
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Bristol, City of
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 £1,300 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She became a good friend to my mother in law, chatting with her, dancing with her, knitting with her and the list goes on”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.