CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stoneacre Lodge Residential Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks with medicines, infection control and management systems, although staffing and recruitment were suitable.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 28 February and 9 March 2022. Two inspectors reviewed records, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked the home and its systems.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found problems with risk records, medicines, infection control, safeguarding records and quality checks. They said some risks were not managed effectively, although they found no evidence that people had been harmed.
There were enough staff to meet people's needs and recruitment checks were in place. Relatives said communication was good and staff were caring and knew people well. The previous overall rating was Good, published in October 2020, but it changed because of this inspection's findings.
The provider must send an action plan. CQC said it would work with the provider and the local authority, monitor progress and return for a further inspection.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff on both inspection days to meet people's needs.
“On both days of inspection, we found there were enough staff available to meet people's needs.” from the report
Recruitment checks
The home had recruitment procedures and pre-employment checks to help ensure suitable people were employed.
“This included pre-employment checks to ensure suitable people were employed.” from the report
Staff knew people
Although care plans were not always person-centred, inspectors found that staff were kind and knew people's needs well.
“However, staff were caring, kind and were knowledgeable about people's needs and knew people very well.” from the report
Communication with relatives
Relatives told inspectors that staff and managers communicated well and would tell them about changes in care.
“Relatives we spoke with told us the management team and staff communicated with them well.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
Relatives were able to visit under the arrangements used by the home, including a lateral flow test before visiting.
“Relatives told us they were able to visit and confirmed they had a lateral flow test (LFT) prior to visiting.” from the report
Care risks were not kept up to date
seriousSome emergency evacuation plans were missing or out of date. Weight checks and pressure-area risk monitoring were also not always current.
“Risks associated with people's care had not always been managed effectively.” from the report
Infection control
seriousInspectors found an overfull clinical waste store, poor laundry separation, damaged surfaces and incorrect use of PPE. The infection control audit had not been completed since August 2020.
“Staff were seen not wearing PPE correctly, touching their masks and wearing same gloves for different tasks.” from the report
Medicines records and processes
seriousMedication records did not always show that medicines had been given as prescribed. Some records lacked signatures, opening dates or stock balances.
“Processes in place did not evidence medicines were given as prescribed.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousCare plan and infection control audits were overdue, and problems found in audits were not always resolved. This was linked to changes in the management team and a vacant deputy manager post.
“The systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service were not effective.” from the report
Person-centred care
needs fixingInspectors found limited choices at lunchtime, written-only menus, restricted access in a communal area and care plans that did not reflect current needs.
“Care plans were not person centred or reflective of people's current needs.” from the report
Safeguarding records
needs fixingThe incident record had not been updated since 2020. One concern reported to the local authority had not initially been reported to CQC, although it was later reported retrospectively.
“We identified one concern that had been reported to the local authority but not to CQC.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure every person's emergency evacuation plan and risk assessment is current?
- 02How do you now check that medicines are given as prescribed and that all medication records are complete?
- 03When was the most recent infection control audit, and what action was taken on any problems found?
- 04How are care plans being updated so they reflect each person's current needs and choices?
- 05What changes have been made to the management team and quality audits since this inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 April 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 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and well-managed care, but the Effective rating remained Requires Improvement.
Inspectors carried out a focused inspection between 30 September and 5 October 2020. They reviewed records, spoke with people, relatives and staff, looked around the home, and checked infection control arrangements.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were rated Good. Inspectors found safer recruitment, good risk management, safe medicines systems, enough staff and effective infection control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Effective rating remained Requires Improvement. This was because inspectors did not review the whole of this area. They checked the specific concerns from the previous inspection and found improvements in consent, people's choices and legal safeguards.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. The home was no longer in breach of the regulations identified at that time.
Safe staffing and recruitment
The home had appropriate pre-employment checks and enough staff to support people. Staff were usually familiar with people's needs.
“Appropriate staff recruitment and pre-employment checks were in place.” from the report
Managing risks
Care and environmental risks were identified and managed. Staff followed care plans and equipment checks were carried out regularly.
“Risks associated with people's care and treatment had been identified and risk assessments were in place to minimise risks occurring.” from the report
Respecting choices
Inspectors found that staff sought consent and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. People's choices were supported in the least restrictive way.
“We found staff followed the principles of the MCA and people's consent was sought in advance of care being provided.” from the report
Positive management
Relatives and staff spoke positively about the management team. Audits covered areas such as incidents, complaints, safeguarding, staffing, safety and medicines.
“The management team are excellent I know them really well. If there is any issue, they sort it.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for preventing and managing infection during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“We were assured the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Effective rating remains below Good
minorThe Effective rating remained Requires Improvement. This inspection only checked the specific areas of concern, rather than reassessing the whole question.
“We have not changed the rating of this key question, as we have only looked at the part of the key question we have specific concerns about.” from the report
- 01Why does the Effective rating remain Requires Improvement, and what further work is planned to improve it?
- 02How does the home check that staff continue to seek consent and follow best-interest decisions?
- 03How are medicines staff keeping their training and competency up to date while local authority training is on hold?
- 04How will you keep families involved and informed about changes to visiting and contact arrangements?
- 05What evidence can you show that the improvements identified after the previous inspection have been maintained?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, specific parts of Effective, and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not reviewed, and the overall rating used previous ratings for areas not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 October 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 Stoneacre Lodge Residential Home
7 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- April 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Stoneacre Lodge Residential Home →
- October 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Stoneacre Lodge Residential Home →
- October 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 January 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
92 live-in carers within about an hour of Doncaster
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. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“I can honestly say without Petros I don't believe he would have lived an extra 2 years”
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.