CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stoneleigh Residential Care Home Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 25 February 2021. It looked at how the home prevented and managed infections during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found the home was clean and tidy. Staff used masks and other protective equipment, and the home had regular testing, hand sanitiser, infection control training and updated policies.
The home had arrangements for safe admissions, visitor testing and socially distanced visits. People could keep in touch with relatives through window visits, emails, video calls and a garden room.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or a full rating for all five areas of care.
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and tidy. Domestic cleaning hours had been increased across all seven days during the pandemic.
“All areas of the home were clean and tidy.” from the report
Regular testing
Staff were tested three times a week, and people living in the home were tested every three weeks or when they showed signs of illness.
“Staff have been tested three times a week, once with a full PCR test and twice a week by a lateral flow test (LFT).” from the report
Infection control training
Staff had completed infection prevention and control training. Further training covered using protective equipment and hand hygiene.
“All staff had completed infection prevention and control training.” from the report
Contact with relatives
The home supported contact through window visits, emails, video calls and a garden room. Visitor testing procedures were in place.
“The home now had a garden room where visitors could physically visit.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the home's current infection prevention, testing and PPE arrangements?
- 02How can relatives visit now, and what testing or booking rules apply?
- 03How are new residents admitted safely, and what isolation arrangements are used if needed?
- 04How often are infection control audits carried out now, and what happens if they identify a problem?
- 05What is the home's current overall CQC rating, since this inspection was not rated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not assess the other four key questions or give an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 March 2021 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, July 2018
Stoneleigh Residential Care Home Limited was rated Good; inspectors found improved medicines management, with a few records and activity details still needing attention.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 3 July 2018. They spoke with people living there, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, staff files, medicines, complaints and management records.
The home had improved since the previous comprehensive inspection in May 2017. Medicines were now managed safely, staffing levels were safe, and earlier concerns about audits, displayed ratings and record keeping had been addressed.
People were described as receiving kind, respectful and personalised care. They were supported with health needs, activities, hobbies and independence. The home was clean and well maintained, and people and relatives gave positive feedback about staff and management.
All five CQC areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found the home met the required standards at the time of this inspection, but the report also noted some smaller areas for improvement.
Improved medicines safety
The previous medicines breach had been addressed. Medicines were securely stored, records were generally complete, and stock checks were carried out.
“At this inspection we found the provider had followed the action plan they had submitted and the administration and management of medicines was safe.” from the report
Safe and consistent staffing
Staffing levels matched planned levels and the home did not use agency staff. Inspectors found that staff had time to support people effectively.
“The service did not use any agency staff which ensured people received consistent care.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and kindness. Staff supported people sensitively and encouraged them to do what they could for themselves.
“People were supported by staff who were kind, caring and respectful.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, routines, preferences and communication needs. Staff supported people to maintain hobbies, friendships and community links.
“Care plans gave information about people's histories, background and interests.” from the report
Positive management
The home had improved its audits and used meetings, surveys and action plans to identify and address improvements. Staff said they felt supported and valued.
“Staff told us there was a positive team culture.” from the report
Guidance for medicines taken when needed
needs fixingDirections for medicines taken when needed did not always give staff individual guidance about when to use them. The registered manager said this would be addressed.
“However, these did not give individual guidance to staff as to when they may be required.” from the report
Some incident records lacked detail
needs fixingRecords did not always include enough specific detail to help identify patterns. It was also not always recorded whether relatives had been contacted.
“It had also not always been recorded if relatives had been contacted to be notified.” from the report
Personal end-of-life wishes
minorEnd-of-life care records used standard questions and did not yet include enough personal detail. The registered manager said this would be developed.
“However, these were based around a standard set of questions.” from the report
Requests for more day trips
minorActivities were generally viewed positively, but two people said they wanted more day trips.
“However, two people said they would like to go on more day trips.” from the report
Portion sizes
minorSome people felt the smaller plate option was still too large. The registered manager said this would be addressed.
“However, people found this portion was still too much.” from the report
- 01How do you now give staff individual guidance about when medicines taken when needed should be given?
- 02How do you record the reason when someone refuses medicines?
- 03How do you make sure incident records contain enough detail to identify patterns and record whether relatives were contacted?
- 04What changes have you made in response to requests for more day trips?
- 05How do you record each person's personal wishes about end-of-life care?
This was an unannounced inspection that checked improvements after the previous Regulation 12 breach and reviewed the overall quality of the home; all five ratings were given. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 July 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 Residential Care Home Limited
5 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Stoneleigh Residential Care Home Limited →
- July 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Stoneleigh Residential Care Home Limited →
- August 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvement
- September 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of North Somerset
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 £1,050 to £1,320 a week. 19 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.