CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stonehaven
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable safeguarding, staffing, recruitment, risk assessment, medicines and infection control arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received care based on their needs and preferences. Staff had suitable training and support, and worked with health professionals to help people access care.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- Inspectors found exceptionally kind, compassionate and respectful care. People were supported to make choices, remain independent and receive personalised support at the end of life.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Care was highly personalised and flexible. People were supported to follow hobbies, maintain relationships, take part in activities and communicate in ways suited to them.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had supportive leadership, an open culture and systems to monitor quality. Inspectors identified missed notifications, but the manager took immediate action to correct this.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Outstanding; inspectors found exceptionally kind, personalised care, with a small administrative shortfall in reporting some legal notifications.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit over 10 and 12 December 2019. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They also reviewed care plans, recruitment records, training information and quality checks.
The home was rated Outstanding overall. Caring and Responsive were Outstanding. Safe, Effective and Well-led were Good. Inspectors found people were treated with kindness and respect, had choices in daily life, and received care shaped around their individual needs, interests and relationships.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, when it was rated Good. Safety improved from Requires Improvement to Good, while Caring and Responsive improved from Good to Outstanding. Inspectors found strong leadership, safe medicines arrangements, suitable staffing and good links with health professionals.
Inspectors found that a small number of required notifications had not been sent to the CQC, mainly about legal authorisations. The manager acted immediately to send them retrospectively and change the administrative systems.
Kind and compassionate care
People and relatives consistently described staff as warm, patient and caring. Inspectors also observed respectful and compassionate interactions.
“Staff are very warm, welcoming and compassionate. I've sat and watched the care team when they haven't been aware [I was there].” from the report
Personal choice
Staff knew people's preferences and supported them to decide when to get up, what to eat, where to sit and how to spend their time.
“A person's life does not end when they come into Stonehaven. You can still live your life, how you want to live it.” from the report
Activities and interests
People could take part in group and one-to-one activities. Staff also helped people continue hobbies such as gardening, cycling, caring for the rabbit and attending a local club.
“The two activities coordinators often worked together which enabled them to provide people with more personalised support.” from the report
Safe care arrangements
Inspectors found safe medicines management, suitable recruitment checks, regular risk reviews and systems to protect people from abuse and infection.
“Staff had received training in safeguarding procedures and were aware of how to report any concerns relating to people's welfare.” from the report
Some required notifications were missed
needs fixingA small number of notifications that the home was required to send had not been submitted, mainly relating to legal authorisations. The manager accepted responsibility, sent them retrospectively and changed the administrative systems.
“In planning our inspection, we noted that a small number of notifications had not been submitted, primarily relating to DoLS authorisations.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to ensure all required notifications, including those about legal authorisations, are sent on time?
- 02How have staffing levels changed since the inspection, particularly at weekends?
- 03Are the individual pendant alarms still in use, and how are they checked?
- 04How are care plans reviewed with people and their families when needs or preferences change?
- 05What activities and one-to-one support are currently available for someone who does not want to join group activities?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of the care home, including the premises and care provided; the separate day care service in the same building was not regulated by the CQC. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 February 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.
What inspectors found, May 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, responsive care and major improvements, but safety still required improvement.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 28 March 2017. They observed care, spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training and quality checks.
The home had improved since its previous inspection in January 2016, when it was rated Requires Improvement. Medicines, activities, care planning and quality monitoring had improved. Staff were described as kind, respectful and responsive, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
The overall rating was Good. However, the Safe question was rated Requires Improvement because risk assessments did not always set out effective steps to prevent harm. The other four areas were rated Good.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as caring and kind. Inspectors saw patient, attentive support and respect for privacy and dignity.
“Staff provided person-centred care in a warm and friendly way.” from the report
Better medicines management
Storage, administration and disposal of medicines had improved and records accurately showed what people had received.
“People's medicines were managed safely and staff worked alongside local healthcare services to ensure people had access to any specialist support they required.” from the report
Personalised care and activities
Care plans reflected people's individual needs and preferences. The home offered a varied programme of activities and supported people to continue their own hobbies.
“A varied programme of communal activities and events was organised to provide people with mental and physical stimulation.” from the report
Strong improvement and leadership
The manager had addressed many concerns from the previous inspection. Staff worked together well and quality checks had been introduced.
“The registered manager had worked hard to make the improvements identified at our last inspection of the home.” from the report
Risk assessments after falls
seriousRisk assessments did not always identify enough practical steps to reduce risks. After a person fell, the assessment mainly reminded them to use a walking frame, and the person later fell again and fractured their hip.
“there was very limited evidence that staff had considered any additional measures to try to prevent further falls beyond reminding the person to use their walking frame.” from the report
Medicines given when needed
seriousThere was no written guidance for staff about some medicines used only when needed. This meant they might not be given consistently or safely.
“there were no protocols to provide staff with additional information to ensure these 'as required' medicines were given consistently and safely.” from the report
Incomplete records
minorSome staff files did not clearly show when recruitment decisions had been made. Records about best-interest decisions were also not always clear.
“we found gaps in some personnel files which made it difficult to identify when the recruitment decision had been made.” from the report
Care planning audit
needs fixingMost quality checks had improved, but the care planning audit was not yet fully effective and needed further development.
“the care planning audit which needed further development to ensure it was fully fit for purpose.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to risk assessments after a person falls?
- 02How do you now make sure medicines given only when needed are administered consistently and safely?
- 03How do you record and review best-interest decisions for people who cannot make some decisions themselves?
- 04What has been done to improve the care planning audit?
- 05How will you show us that the improvements identified at this inspection have been maintained?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home covering all five CQC questions; the day care service in the same building was not regulated by the CQC. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 May 2017 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 Stonehaven
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Outstanding.
- February 2020Outstandingcurrent ratingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.