CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stones Place
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Stones Place was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 arrangements but minor infection-control shortfalls.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 19 January 2022. It followed concerns about infection prevention, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing testing, personal protective equipment, admissions, outbreaks and visits. The home had also created a staff role to lead COVID-19 administration.
The home was clean and well maintained in communal areas. However, some staff-only areas needed better cleaning and decoration, one used-PPE disposal procedure had not been followed, and inspectors were only somewhat assured about shielding and social distancing.
COVID-19 systems
The home had systems for COVID-19 testing and visiting arrangements, with a new staff role created to manage related administration.
“The provider had effective systems to ensure compliance with national policy requirements in areas including COVID-19 testing and visiting arrangements.” from the report
Visits and infection controls
Inspectors were assured that visits were being supported in line with current guidance and that the home was using PPE safely.
“We were assured that the provider was facilitating visits for people living in the home in accordance with the current guidance.” from the report
Staff-only areas
needs fixingSome areas used only by staff had minor problems with cleanliness and decoration. Inspectors said this increased the risk of infection spreading.
“However, we identified minor shortfalls in the cleanliness and decoration of some areas accessed exclusively by staff, increasing the risk of the spread of infection.” from the report
Used PPE disposal
needs fixingOne instance did not follow the home's required procedure for disposing of used PPE. Senior staff said they would act on the concern.
“Additionally, we identified one instance when the provider's procedural requirements on the disposal of used PPE had not been followed.” from the report
Shielding and distancing
needs fixingInspectors were only somewhat assured that shielding and social distancing rules were being met. The home was asked to consider improving staff cohorting arrangements.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was meeting shielding and social distancing rules.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to improve cleanliness and decoration in the staff-only areas?
- 02How do you now make sure used PPE is disposed of according to the home's procedure?
- 03What changes have been made to staff cohorting since inspectors suggested further improvements?
- 04How are shielding and social distancing managed if there is another COVID-19 outbreak?
- 05Who now leads the home's COVID-19 administrative processes, and how is this work checked?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other four questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 January 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, March 2019
Stones Place rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with a few small shortfalls identified.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 18 September 2018. Two inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a volunteer. They looked at care records, medicines records, staff files, training and management checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training, good food, kind care and detailed care plans. People were involved in decisions about their care and had opportunities to share their views.
The home had remained Good since the previous inspection in February 2016. Inspectors found no evidence of serious risks or concerns. They identified a few smaller issues, including missing protocols for two as-required medicines for one new resident and a lack of hand-washing or hand-gel stations, which the manager said would be addressed.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people’s needs. Medicines were administered by trained staff and stocks were well managed.
“We reviewed staff rosters and saw that staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of the people living at the home.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, privacy and independence. Interactions were described as warm, kind and respectful.
“People were supported by a dedicated and caring staff team who knew them well.” from the report
Good care planning
Care plans contained detailed information about people’s needs, likes and dislikes. People were involved in planning and reviewing their own care.
“The care plans we saw were specific about people's needs and contained good detail about the person's likes and dislikes.” from the report
Strong management checks
The manager and provider used regular audits covering areas such as medicines, infection control, nutrition and falls. These checks were used to drive improvement.
“The provider had ensured that effective governance, audit and quality assurance systems were in place.” from the report
Food and health support
People said the food was good and plentiful. The home worked with health professionals to support people’s health and wellbeing.
“Food and drink at the home was good quality and plentiful.” from the report
Missing medicines protocols
needs fixingOne new resident had two as-required medicines without protocols explaining when they should be used. The issue was corrected before the inspection ended.
“It was identified that one new resident was on two different 'as required' medicines but did not have protocols in place.” from the report
Hand-washing facilities
needs fixingInspectors found no hand-wash or hand-gel stations for visitors, staff or residents to use in the home. The manager said this would be raised and rectified.
“We did note that there were no hand wash or gel stations within the home that visitors, staff or residents could use whilst in the home to reduce the risk of spreading infection.” from the report
Personal care preferences
minorCare plans did not record whether people preferred a male or female member of staff to provide personal care. Inspectors said this information should be obtained and included.
“It was noted that care plans did not record a person's preference of the gender of the person providing personal care.” from the report
- 01Have hand-wash or hand-gel stations now been installed throughout the home, and where are they located?
- 02How are protocols for as-required medicines checked before a new resident moves in?
- 03How do you record and respect a person’s preference about the gender of the person providing personal care?
- 04How are care plans reviewed with residents and their relatives when needs or independence change?
- 05How do your audits identify and follow up any shortfalls in medicines, infection control, nutrition and falls?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 March 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 Stones Place
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 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
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.