What the CQC found at Stoneleigh House

Inspectors found that medicines were recorded accurately and appeared to have been given as prescribed. There were also clear protocols for medicines given when needed.

“Medication Administration Records (MAR) had been completed accurately and the number of medications recorded on the MAR reflected what was held in the medication cupboard.” from the report

The home was clean and odourless. Staff used protective equipment when needed and took steps to limit the spread of illness.

“There were safe systems in place to control the spread of infection.” from the report

Staff understood how to report suspected abuse and the manager understood the home's safeguarding responsibilities.

“People were kept safe at the home as staff had received training in safeguarding people and knew the actions they should take if they thought someone was at risk of harm.” from the report

People were supported to see GPs, nurses, dentists and opticians, and referrals were made to specialist services when needed.

“People had access to healthcare services.” from the report

People were relaxed with staff and some people described staff as kind and friendly. Staff were said to know people well.

“Where staff were seen to spend time with people, we found that they had positive relationships with people.” from the report

Staff did not consistently know their roles in a fire. The answers inspectors heard could have put people at risk of injury or harm.

“Staff's description of actions they would take to ensure people's safety in this situation had the potential to cause injury or harm to people.” from the report

Records did not always show that people had been repositioned at the correct intervals to reduce the risk of sore skin. This meant inspectors could not be sure the planned support had happened.

“This meant we could not be sure that people were being supported safely to reduce the risk of sore skin.” from the report

Some new staff had started supporting people without relevant training. This included pressure area care and swallowing difficulties.

“This meant that there were some staff supporting people in areas they had not yet received any training in.” from the report

People were not consistently offered choices about when to get up, what to eat or where to eat. Inspectors also saw care delivered without privacy and a delay after an episode of incontinence.

“People were not always given privacy.” from the report

People said they did not go out or choose activities as often as they wanted. On one day, inspectors saw little stimulation and limited staff interaction.

“We saw that there was an inconsistency in the availability of activities.” from the report

The home's audits had not found inaccurate care records or the problems with dignity, choice and risk management identified during the inspection.

“The systems had not identified that staff were not recording that they had followed risk assessments in relation to pressure area care.” from the report