CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stichell House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, staffing, medicines, recruitment, infection control and the premises were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says ratings for questions not inspected were carried over from the last inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report does include very positive comments from people and relatives about staff and care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says ratings for questions not inspected were carried over from the last inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was well managed, with a positive culture, regular quality checks and feedback from people, relatives and staff. The provider and manager also worked with other health professionals.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and strong management, but the manager was not yet registered.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 17 and 21 April 2023. Inspectors reviewed information, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed communal areas, checked the premises and examined care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems, suitable infection control, well-managed risks and effective checks on service quality. People and relatives spoke very positively about the staff and care.
The inspection was prompted by information received by the CQC. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from this concern. The overall rating stayed Good, but the other three key questions were not inspected during this visit and their previous ratings were carried forward.
Kind and patient staff
People and relatives described staff as kind, excellent and caring. They said staff were patient, cheerful and readily available.
“The carers are so patient with everybody, have a good sense of humour and keep the place happy all the time” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs. People and relatives said staff were present and responded quickly.
“There are loads of staff around and if you need anything, they are there on the dot.” from the report
Safe medicines and premises
Medicines were administered and stored safely. The home also carried out checks on the premises, equipment and fire safety.
“Staff safely administered and managed people's medicines.” from the report
Good management checks
The provider and manager used audits, meetings, surveys and reviews to monitor quality and gather views.
“The provider had an effective quality assurance process in place which included regular audits.” from the report
Clean and welcoming home
The inspection found infection control processes were embedded, and relatives described the home and rooms as very clean.
“It is very well organised, very clean, welcoming and homely.” from the report
Manager registration was pending
minorThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. The appointed manager had submitted an application and was waiting for the registration process to be completed.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01Has the appointed manager's registration application now been completed?
- 02How does the home check that staffing levels continue to meet each person's individual needs?
- 03How are medicine audits used to identify and correct any errors?
- 04How are people, relatives and staff told about changes made after surveys, meetings or reviews?
- 05When will Effective, Caring and Responsive be fully reassessed?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried over from the last inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 June 2023 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, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were keeping people safe.
This was an announced inspection on 13 November 2020. It was part of a national review of infection prevention and control in care homes during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found staff were trained in using personal protective equipment and hand hygiene. The home had extra cleaning, suitable PPE supplies, infection control checks and arrangements for testing, social distancing and safe admissions.
There had recently been a COVID-19 outbreak, so only essential health and compliance visits were allowed at the time. Plans were in place for a booking system when visits restarted. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Staff training
Staff had training in PPE, hand hygiene and other relevant areas. Their practice was checked by managers.
“Staff had undertaken training in putting on and taking off personal protective equipment (PPE), hand hygiene and other relevant training.” from the report
Cleaning and PPE
The home increased cleaning, including of frequently touched surfaces. Inspectors found suitable PPE supplies that were stored properly.
“Additional cleaning of all areas and frequent touch surfaces was being carried out.” from the report
Visitor safety
There was a process for checking visitors for symptoms and temperature, recording their contact details and requiring PPE.
“There was a clear process for visitors, which included screening for symptoms of acute respiratory infection, a temperature check and the wearing of PPE.” from the report
Emotional support
People and relatives were helped to stay in contact through technology and regular newsletters during restrictions.
“People and their relatives were supported to keep in contact using a range of technology and regular newsletters.” from the report
Infection control checks
The home carried out infection control audits and acted promptly on recommendations from the local infection prevention and control team.
“Infection control audits and checks were carried out.” from the report
Further development suggested
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach. The report does not give further detail about what needed development.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What infection control changes have been made since the inspection and the recent COVID-19 outbreak?
- 02How are visitors currently screened, and what PPE or booking arrangements are required?
- 03How often are infection control audits and checks carried out, and what happens when they identify a problem?
- 04How does the home support residents to keep in contact with relatives during any visiting restrictions?
- 05What resources or improvements did the provider pursue after CQC signposted it to develop its approach?
This was an announced thematic inspection focused on infection prevention and control; the service was inspected but not rated and the report does not assess the other care areas in detail. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 December 2020 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 Stichell House
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 February 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
43 live-in carers within about an hour of Hartlepool
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 £970 to £1,120 a week. 40 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.