CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stoneleigh House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm, supported by enough staff and given medicines safely. Inspectors found that some restraint records did not clearly state the exact type used, and infection guidance was not fully up to date.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received training and supervision and supported people's health, choices and independence. Some staff did not know who had a DoLS authorisation, although the required documents were in place and inspectors found no evidence of unlawful restrictions.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found approachable management, supportive staff and effective quality checks. People, relatives and professionals were encouraged to give feedback and raise concerns.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Stoneleigh House rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but identified some gaps in restraint records, infection guidance and staff knowledge.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited from 19 January to 3 February 2022, spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records. The inspection was partly prompted by concerns about restraint. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from this concern.
The home supported four people with learning disabilities and autism. Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff, kind care, personalised care plans and support for people's choices, independence, hobbies and health. People and relatives said people felt safe and were happy living at the home.
Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Good. The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection published in August 2017. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this focused visit, so their ratings were not given in this report.
Enough trained staff
There were enough staff to support people's needs, including one-to-one support for hobbies and visits out. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started.
“People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's needs and wishes. Staff promoted choice, independence, dignity and privacy.
“People's care plans detailed their needs and wishes and promoted choice, independence, dignity and privacy.” from the report
Choice and activities
People were supported to follow their interests, make choices about daily life and try new experiences.
“People were supported to pursue their hobbies and interests.” from the report
Positive leadership
Management was visible and approachable. Staff felt able to raise concerns, and quality checks helped keep people safe and support good care.
“Quality assurance checks ensured the service remained safe and effective.” from the report
Restraint records
needs fixingSome records did not clearly describe the exact type of restraint used. The manager agreed to include the name of the restraint as well as its description.
“recording of the use of restraint did not include a clear description of the exact type used in some cases.” from the report
Out-of-date infection guidance
needs fixingThe infection prevention policy referred to old government testing guidance, although staff were following the current guidance in practice. The manager updated how staff would read new guidance during the inspection.
“Infection prevention guidance for staff was not updated in line with current government guidance.” from the report
DoLS knowledge
needs fixingSome staff did not know which people had a DoLS authorisation. The manager agreed to address this in a team meeting and in supervision.
“Some staff did not know who had a DoLs authorisation.” from the report
Different restraint training terms
needs fixingSome staff had completed two restraint courses that used different terms. The manager agreed to create a quick reference guide and planned to use one course for all staff.
“since the two courses used different terms the registered manager agreed a quick reference guide to the terms and positions for both approaches would be developed.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every restraint record clearly names and describes the exact type of restraint used?
- 02Has the infection prevention guidance been updated to match current government guidance, and how are staff told about changes?
- 03How do you make sure all staff know which people have DoLS authorisations and what restrictions are legally authorised?
- 04Have you introduced the quick reference guide for the two restraint approaches, and are you now using one restraint training course?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their ratings were not given in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 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, April 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but noted missed DoLS notifications and one staff check started before the full DBS result.
This was an unannounced inspection on 22 August 2017. The inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff, managers and the provider. They reviewed care files, staff recruitment and training records, medicines and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training, respectful care, regular care reviews and a range of activities.
There were two areas to keep under review. The provider had not consistently told the CQC about DoLS authorisations. One staff member started work after only a preliminary DBS check, although the provider had assessed the risks and other staff files had the required checks.
Enough familiar staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, including when people went out or attended appointments. Cover arrangements used staff who knew people well.
“The staffing levels and contingency arrangements meant that people's needs were met by an appropriate number of familiar staff.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely and records checked for two people were complete. Staff had medicines training and competency checks.
“We looked at the medicines and Medicine Administration Records [MAR] for two people and found their prescribed medicines were available to give to them as prescribed and that the MAR had been completed appropriately.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff gave people time, reassurance and attention. Inspectors saw a relaxed atmosphere and support that respected privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“We observed that interactions between staff and people were caring and showed compassion.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to do everyday tasks, build daily living skills and take part in activities and outings they enjoyed.
“Staff told us and records confirmed that people were enabled to access the community and a wide range of leisure activities every day.” from the report
Regular quality checks
The home carried out daily and weekly checks covering areas such as cleaning, health and safety, records and medicines. Inspectors found corrective action when problems were identified.
“We found that quality checks on the service had been undertaken regularly.” from the report
DoLS notifications
needs fixingThe provider had not consistently notified the CQC about DoLS authorisations. The report says this was a legal requirement.
“However, the provider had not consistently notify us of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding [DoLS] authorisations.” from the report
One incomplete recruitment check at start
needs fixingOne staff member was allowed to start after a preliminary DBS check, before the full check had been received. The provider had completed a risk assessment, and the other two staff files checked had the required checks.
“For one staff however, the provider had allowed them to start work after a preliminary check with the Disclosure and Barring Service [DBS] had been undertaken.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every DoLS authorisation is notified to the CQC on time?
- 02Do all staff now wait for their full DBS check before starting work, and what happens if there is an exception?
- 03How are monthly care plan reviews shared with people and their relatives?
- 04How do you choose activities and outings around each person's interests, abilities and wishes?
- 05How will you keep relatives informed about healthcare appointments and any changes in care?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating; the previous inspection in 2015 had also rated all five areas Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 April 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 Stoneleigh House
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 February 2013.
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 Sandwell
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 £950 to £1,190 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
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.