CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Stocks Hall Mawdesley
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were generally protected from abuse, avoidable harm and infection. Inspectors found concerns about medicines records, night staffing and some staff not wearing face masks correctly.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The acting manager was visible and approachable, staff understood their responsibilities, and quality checks were used to identify and address shortfalls.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Stocks Hall Mawdesley is Rated Good; inspectors found kind, well-managed care, with some medicines, night staffing and mask-wearing issues to check.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 10 December 2021. It followed concerns about pet dogs in the home. Inspectors reviewed Safe and Well-led, including infection control. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe was Good and Well-led was Good. Inspectors found that people were generally protected from harm, the home was clean, and staff understood safeguarding procedures. They also found kind interactions and managers who knew people well.
There were some areas to improve. One person's medicines had not been reconciled correctly, allergy records were incomplete, and the fridge thermometer was not always reset properly. Some people and relatives felt there were not enough staff at night. A small number of staff were not wearing face masks correctly when inspectors visited.
This was not a full inspection of all five areas. Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward from the last comprehensive inspection.
Kind staff interactions
Inspectors saw staff treating people warmly and spending time with them. People’s wishes and preferences were considered.
“We observed some lovely interactions by staff members, who were clearly committed to the people who lived at Stocks Hall.” from the report
Safeguarding
Staff knew how to report abuse and safeguarding events were recorded. Staff had received safeguarding training.
“Staff had received training in safeguarding people and were confident in reporting any concerns.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and hygienic, with cleaning arrangements and supplies of protective equipment in place.
“We found the environment to be clean and hygienic throughout.” from the report
Good management checks
The home had systems to monitor care and staff practice. Inspectors found evidence that action was taken when shortfalls were identified.
“Effective systems were in place to check the quality of service provided and to monitor staff practice.” from the report
Communication with families
Relatives reported that staff communicated well and that they could contact the home when needed.
“They [staff] are very good at communicating. They phone us at home and in between visits.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingOne person's medicines had not been reconciled correctly. Allergy records were not complete for everyone checked, and the fridge thermometer was not always reset correctly.
“We saw that medicines for one person were not reconciled correctly.” from the report
Night staffing
needs fixingSome people and relatives felt there were not enough staff at night. The management team said night-time staff deployment would be reassessed.
“One person told us, "I feel safe most of the time, but at night we don't have enough staff and sometimes they are inexperienced agency staff.” from the report
Correct mask-wearing
needs fixingInspectors saw a small number of staff wearing face masks incorrectly. The acting manager said this would be addressed without delay.
“we did observe a small number of staff not wearing face masks correctly” from the report
- 01What changes were made after the inspection to make sure all medicines are reconciled correctly?
- 02Are allergy records now complete for every person, and how are fridge temperatures checked?
- 03What was the outcome of the reassessment of night-time staffing levels?
- 04How do you make sure all staff wear face masks correctly when required?
- 05What were the previous ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, and when will these areas next be fully inspected?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 January 2022 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, November 2018
Stocks Hall Mawdesley is Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care and improvements since 2017, but medicines records still needed tighter checks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 September 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and the manager. They looked at care records, medicines, staff files, the building and the home's quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, detailed care plans, respectful care, suitable food and activities, and good links with health professionals.
There were still some weaknesses. Medicines records were not always complete, some staff training was overdue, and some people said they waited at busy times. The home took immediate action on several issues during or after the inspection.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff communicating well and supporting privacy, dignity and independence. People and relatives also gave positive views about the care.
“Staff interacted well with those who lived at the home.” from the report
Person-centred care plans
Care plans gave staff clear guidance about people's needs. They were reviewed each month and changes were recorded.
“The care files we saw were maintained electronically.” from the report
Activities and interests
The home provided a wide range of activities, trips and ways to support people's individual interests and reduce isolation.
“We noted excellent access to a wide variety of activities and facilities in the home and within the wider community.” from the report
Improvement after the previous inspection
The provider had an action plan and inspectors found that the earlier safeguarding problems had been addressed. All five areas were rated Good at this inspection.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousSome records lacked photographs, allergy information or instructions for medicines taken when needed. Three doses of paracetamol from homely remedy stock were not recorded, creating a risk of double dosing.
“Recording errors meant we could not be sure that people always received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Staff training records
needs fixingSome training modules were overdue or not clearly recorded. The report also said supervision and appraisals could have been more regular.
“The records we saw did not show that all staff training was up to date.” from the report
Waiting at busy times
needs fixingSome people said they had to wait for help at busy times. One person also said they felt less safe at night when agency staff were on duty.
“However, some said that at busy times of day they had to wait a while for someone to attend to them.” from the report
Involvement in care plans
minorAlthough care plans were detailed and reviewed regularly, not everyone could say whether they had been involved in planning their own care.
“Not everyone could tell us if they had been involved in the planning of their own care” from the report
- 01What checks now confirm that each person's medicine record includes their photograph, allergy status and instructions for medicines taken when needed?
- 02How do you make sure medicines given from homely remedy stock are recorded and cannot be given twice?
- 03How do you ensure all staff training is current, including training for people's specific medical needs?
- 04How do you staff busy periods and night shifts, and how often do you use agency staff?
- 05How will you make sure each person and their relatives are involved in care plan reviews in the way they choose?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, including all five rating areas, the premises, care records, medicines, staff records and quality monitoring systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 November 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 Stocks Hall Mawdesley
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 2015.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.