CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stone House Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective safeguarding, suitable staffing and recruitment checks, safe medicines systems and infection control measures. Some environmental risks and insecure creams were found, but these were addressed during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating or detailed findings for this question in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating or detailed findings for this question in this inspection, although people and families spoke positively about the care and staff.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating or detailed findings for this question in this inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management checks did not always identify problems with care records, environmental monitoring or staff training. The new recording system was not fully implemented.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Stone House Residential Home is rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but well-led was Requires Improvement because checks and records were not always effective.
This was an unannounced inspection on 05 September 2022. Two inspectors reviewed care and management records, spoke with 8 people, 4 staff members, the manager and health professionals, and checked infection control.
People were found to be safe. Staff numbers and recruitment checks were suitable. Medicines were given when needed, infection control systems were in place, and people and families said the home was clean and caring. Risks found during the visit were addressed on the day.
The main weakness was management oversight. New recording systems were not fully in place, some records were not checked properly, and outstanding staff training had not been monitored. The overall rating stayed Good, but the well-led rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement.
People felt safe
People and families told inspectors that they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were in place and concerns were reported to outside agencies when needed.
“People told us they felt safe living at the service.” from the report
Caring staff
People and families spoke warmly about the staff. Inspectors found that staff knew people well and supported their choices.
“They are doing a wonderful job. I can only speak from what I can see. I witnessed that they really care” from the report
Clean environment
Infection prevention systems were in place, and people and families described the home as exceptionally clean.
“People and family members told us that the service was always exceptionally clean.” from the report
Working with health professionals
The home worked with local services and health professionals to support people's health and welfare. A visiting professional described staff as responsive.
“One of the better homes in the area. Staff always do everything as requested. Always responsive with any contact / information requests.” from the report
Environmental checks
needs fixingInspectors found several environmental problems, including trailing cables, damaged window restrictors and a room used to store equipment. These issues were addressed during the inspection, but the home was told to improve its monitoring.
“One person's bedroom had several trailing power leads and extension cables that crossed the room which created a trip hazard.” from the report
Incomplete management records
needs fixingThe new recording system was not fully implemented. Checks had not identified problems with some care records and fluid monitoring charts.
“The system for monitoring records had not identified areas of improvement.” from the report
Training oversight
needs fixingThe provider's monitoring systems had not identified or dealt with outstanding staff training. The provider said this would be addressed through a new training platform.
“Provider monitoring systems had failed to monitor and address outstanding training required to be undertaken by staff.” from the report
Some creams were not stored securely
minorInspectors found creams and emollients that should have been stored securely. They were moved to suitable storage after this was discussed.
“However, during the inspection we identified creams and emollients that should have been stored securely.” from the report
- 01How have you improved checks of people's bedrooms, storage areas, window restrictors and trip hazards since the inspection?
- 02Is the new care and support recording system now fully implemented, and who checks that records are complete?
- 03Have all outstanding staff training requirements been completed, and how are they monitored now?
- 04How are fluid intake charts and other care records reviewed to make sure problems are found quickly?
- 05How are creams and emollients stored securely and checked?
This was a focused inspection covering Safe and Well-led; the report does not give new ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive, and the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 December 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, January 2018
Stone House Residential Home rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and well-managed care, with a recommendation to improve fluid records.
Inspectors visited on 20 and 28 December 2017. The first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. They reviewed seven care plans, medicines systems, staff recruitment and training records, policies, audits and the building. They also observed care and spoke with people, staff and others.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, received their medicines when needed and were treated kindly and respectfully. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines systems, clean premises, personalised care plans and activities for people to choose from.
There were some records that needed improvement. Fluid records did not show each person's daily target, so it was not always possible to tell whether they had received enough to drink. Care plans also did not always consistently record people's ethnicity and sexuality. Inspectors made a recommendation about care records, but found no evidence that the fluid recording issue had harmed anyone.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were securely stored, properly recorded and regularly audited. Staff administering medicines had training and competency checks.
“Medication was well managed and promoted the health of people who used the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about the staff. Inspectors observed friendly, respectful interactions and found that privacy was considered.
“People were treated in a kind and respectful manner.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's health needs, social history and interests. Staff practice matched the information in the plans, and people were supported to remain independent where safe.
“Care plans were up to date and were accompanied by daily records.” from the report
Activities and community links
The range of activities had improved after earlier feedback. People could choose group or one-to-one activities and community groups and entertainers visited.
“Activities had been improved following a Healthwatch visit with links to local community groups having been fostered.” from the report
Quality checks
The provider used audits, feedback, meetings and incident reviews to identify and act on improvements.
“A number of audits were used to ensure that any improvements needed were actioned.” from the report
Fluid records
needs fixingFluid records were completed for some people but did not show their daily drinking targets. This meant staff and health professionals could not always tell from the records whether enough fluid had been received, although inspectors found no evidence of harm.
“As a result, there was no indication as to whether people had received sufficient hydration.” from the report
Incomplete personal information
minorCare plans referred to ethnicity and sexuality, but these details were not always completed consistently. Inspectors raised this with the acting manager for action.
“Care plans included reference to people's ethnicity and sexuality but these were not always consistently completed.” from the report
- 01How do you now set and record each person's daily fluid target?
- 02How do you check that fluid records are complete and act if someone is not drinking enough?
- 03Have all care plans been updated to record people's ethnicity and sexuality consistently?
- 04How was care maintained during the registered manager's temporary absence, and who would manage the home if this happened again?
- 05What activities are currently available, and how do you adapt them for people who do not want to join group sessions?
This was an overall inspection covering all five CQC questions, the care provided and the premises; it was unannounced on 20 December and announced on 28 December 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 January 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 Stone House Residential Home
2 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Stone House Residential Home →
- January 2018GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Stone House Residential Home →
- June 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 June 2016.
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
84 live-in carers within about an hour of Cheshire West and Chester
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. 76 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.