CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stockwood House
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- The home had good arrangements for PPE, testing, cleaning, visits and managing outbreaks. However, inspectors found gaps in visitor checks, admissions guidance and checking vaccination documents.
- Effective?
- Outstanding
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control arrangements but gaps in visitor checks, admissions guidance and vaccination records.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 6 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, and asked about staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
There were several good arrangements. The home provided PPE, supported visits, used cleaning schedules and had plans for separating facilities during an outbreak. Staff had also received infection-control training.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured about some areas. Not all visitors were checked for symptoms, temperatures or vaccination proof. Staff were not all aware of the current admissions guidance, and the home was not checking the correct vaccination documents for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other four questions.
PPE and testing
PPE was available for staff and visitors, and visitors were asked to show a negative lateral flow test. Inspectors found that staff wore PPE correctly.
“Staff were observed to be wearing PPE correctly at all times.” from the report
Visits were supported
People could arrange visits with friends and relatives in a designated area. Visits outside the home were also encouraged.
“People were supported to arrange for friends and relatives to visit the home in a designated visiting area.” from the report
Clean environment
The home had cleaning schedules, and inspectors found the premises and furniture clean and tidy.
“The home had cleaning schedules in place and the premises and furniture all looked clean and tidy at all times.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had plans to separate facilities if there was a COVID-19 outbreak and worked with health and social care professionals on infection risks.
“Procedures were in place to ensure facilities could be separated in the event of an outbreak of COVID-19.” from the report
Visitor checks were not consistent
needs fixingNot all visitors were asked about symptoms, given a temperature check or asked for proof of vaccination. Inspectors were therefore only somewhat assured that infection risks to visitors were being managed.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Admissions guidance
needs fixingStaff were not aware of the current guidance for admissions to care homes. Inspectors said this created a risk that incorrect procedures could be followed.
“This meant there was a risk that the incorrect procedures could be followed” from the report
- 01How do you now check visitors for symptoms, temperature and vaccination evidence?
- 02How do you make sure all staff know and follow the current admissions guidance?
- 03How do you check and record the correct vaccination evidence for visiting professionals and non-exempt staff?
- 04What are the current ratings for Caring, Effective, Responsive and Well-led, which were not assessed in this inspection?
- 05How are staffing pressures affecting the home, and what measures are in place to manage them?
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and staffing pressures; it did not provide an overall rating or assess the other four key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 February 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, October 2019
Rated Outstanding; inspectors found highly effective, personalised support, with safe, caring and well-led care rated Good.
This was an unannounced inspection on 29 August and 10 September 2019. Two inspectors spoke with people, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, training information, policies, audits and other records.
The home supports up to six people with eating disorders. Five people were using the service at the time. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with respect and supported by enough staff. Medicines were managed correctly and the home was clean and well maintained.
The strongest findings were about effective and responsive care. Inspectors found specialist staff helped people work towards recovery, independence and personal goals. Care was tailored to individual needs, interests and choices.
The overall rating was Outstanding. Safe, caring and well-led were rated Good. Effective and responsive improved from Good at the previous inspection, while well-led improved from Requires Improvement.
Specialist support
The home used specialist knowledge and several professional disciplines to support people with eating disorders and work towards recovery.
“The provider had specialist professional skills and knowledge to plan suitable and personalised programmes to help people achieve their goals.” from the report
Personalised care
Support was shaped around each person's needs, preferences, independence and wider life goals, not only their illness.
“People received exceptionally personalised care and support which met their needs, reflected their preferences and promoted their wellbeing.” from the report
Positive outcomes
Inspectors found evidence that people made progress, including towards independence, education, work and avoiding hospital readmission.
“There was evidence people achieved good care outcomes and their comments about the service supported this.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Staffing levels were based on people's assessed needs. The medicines records checked by inspectors were correct and in order.
“We checked some of the medicines and records, and everything was correct and in order.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had improved its systems for checking quality and recording actions to deal with shortfalls.
“The provider had a more improved governance system to assess and monitor all aspects of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess whether this home is suitable for my relative's particular eating disorder and recovery goals?
- 02What restrictions might be used, how will they be explained, and how often will they be reviewed with the person?
- 03How will my relative be involved in planning meals, monitoring their weight and adjusting their support?
- 04Which specialist professionals will be involved, and how often will health and psychiatric needs be reviewed?
- 05How do you plan and support a move to another service, hospital discharge or independent living?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the home, care provided and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 October 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 Stockwood House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Outstanding.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2019Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 January 2012.
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 Luton
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. 81 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.