CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stonepit Close
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable risk assessments, safe recruitment, safe medicines management and strong infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training, supervision and support. People's health, nutrition and hydration needs were met, and the home worked with health and social care professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. The report says the previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. The report says the previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found robust quality checks, clear staff roles and an open culture. People, relatives and staff were asked for their views.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-led care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 14 January 2021. Two inspectors spoke with people, staff and relatives, and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training, good infection control and effective checks on the quality of care.
The previous inspection rated the home Requires Improvement and found two breaches. The provider had made the required improvements, so the home was no longer in breach of those regulations.
This inspection did not assess Caring or Responsive. Their previous ratings were carried forward when the overall rating was calculated.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were also in place.
“There were sufficient staff deployed to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Medicines
Staff giving medicines were trained and assessed as competent. Records checked by inspectors had no gaps.
“We saw MAR charts were completed appropriately with no gaps, which meant people received their medicine in accordance with their prescription.” from the report
Staff skills
Staff received training about autism and other specific health and behavioural needs. They also had regular supervision and appraisals.
“In addition to mandatory training, staff had received specific training to understand and support people with specific health and behavioural conditions” from the report
Choice and dignity
Staff supported people to make choices and respected their privacy. Different communication tools were used to help people express themselves.
“We observed staff consistently sought consent from people before they supported them.” from the report
Quality oversight
The home used regular audits and reviews to monitor care, staffing, incidents and the building.
“There were robust quality assurance processes that ensured continued oversight of people's care and the service.” from the report
Bedroom door repair
needs fixingOne person's bedroom door was not shutting properly. The issue had been reported to the landlord some weeks earlier and was due to be repaired the following week.
“One person's bedroom door was not shutting properly, which was reported to the landlord some weeks ago.” from the report
Size of the home
minorThe home supports 10 people across two houses. Inspectors noted that this is larger than current best practice guidance, although the houses are separate and look like ordinary homes.
“Stonepit Close offers accommodation to 10 people with learning disabilities and autism. This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01How quickly are repairs such as bedroom doors dealt with, and who checks that the repair has been completed?
- 02How will you make sure there are enough staff if a person's needs or behaviour changes?
- 03What specific training do staff have for my relative's autism, communication and health needs?
- 04How will my relative be supported to make choices and communicate if they cannot express themselves verbally?
- 05What arrangements are currently available for family contact and visits, and how are changes explained?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led following earlier breaches; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 February 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, August 2019
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but staffing, training and management checks needed work.
Inspectors visited on 8 August 2019. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment, training and quality checks.
People were treated kindly and with respect. They were supported to make choices, develop independence and take part in activities. Medicines were generally given safely, and no restrictive interventions were used.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. There were five vacant posts, some weekend staffing shortfalls, incomplete training records, care plans and risk reviews that were not always up to date, and weak checks by managers. The provider was told to improve staffing support and governance.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw caring interactions, and people’s privacy and dignity were protected.
“We observed kind and caring interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Building independence
People were encouraged to make choices and gain skills. One person had progressed from needing two staff to access the community to going out alone or with a friend.
“People were encouraged to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Activities and community life
People took part in activities inside and outside the home, attended day centres and were supported to maintain community connections.
“Many varied activities were provided for people both in and outside of the service.” from the report
Staff vacancies and weekends
seriousThere were five vacant posts. Although shifts were covered, some weekends had fewer staff than planned and families said this sometimes reduced opportunities to go out.
“If they are short staffed at weekends, they can't go out. It happens fairly often.” from the report
Incomplete staff training and support
seriousThe home could not provide a complete training overview. Nine of ten staff had at least one training subject marked out of date or overdue, and supervision and appraisals were not always completed.
“The failure to ensure that all staff were provided with adequate support and training is a breach of Regulation 18” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits did not identify several known problems, including overdue reviews, training gaps and medicines recording issues. Some maintenance testing records were also unavailable.
“The failure to have effective and robust governance systems in place is a breach of Regulation 17” from the report
Care and risk reviews
needs fixingSome risk assessments and care plans were not clearly reviewed when due. Four of nine care plans had not been updated on time.
“Four out of nine care plans had not been reviewed and updated when due.” from the report
Infection control arrangements
needs fixingThere was no named infection control lead or regular infection control audit. Staff also did not have easy access to the recommended foot-operated bin for used protective equipment.
“However, there was no named lead for infection control at the service, no regular audits in place” from the report
- 01How many of the five vacant posts have now been filled, and how do you make sure planned staffing levels are met at weekends?
- 02What is the current training record for every staff member, including medicines, fire safety, food management and the Mental Capacity Act?
- 03How do you ensure supervision and appraisals happen when due?
- 04How are care plan, risk assessment, fire safety, infection control and equipment checks now reviewed and followed up?
- 05How do you check that medicines records are correctly countersigned and that people attend planned dental and optician appointments?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous overall rating was Good in 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 August 2019 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 Stonepit Close
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- October 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.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 December 2010.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.