CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stoneygate Oaklands
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were in place. This included visitor controls, social distancing, safe admissions, testing, hygiene and managing possible outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, September 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention, including PPE, testing and shielding arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 13 August 2020. It focused only on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found good practice. There was enough personal protective equipment, staff were using it correctly, and people were tested before admission. New admissions were then shielded for 14 days and tested again.
The home had infection control training for senior staff, an infection control lead for staff questions, and plans to use consistent agency staff if agency workers were needed. Inspectors said they were assured about the infection prevention arrangements.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating. Inspectors also signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach.
PPE and hygiene
The home had enough PPE and staff were observed using it in line with national guidance.
“The provider ensured there was a sufficient stock of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and we observed staff wearing this in line with national guidance.” from the report
Admission testing
People were tested before admission, shielded for 14 days and tested again after that period.
“People that were admitted to the service were tested prior to admission and placed on 14 day shielding and re-tested following the initial shielding period.” from the report
Infection control training
Senior staff received extra infection control training and shared this with other staff.
“The registered manager and senior staff had additional infection control training from health care services which had been relayed to other staff in the home.” from the report
Further development was needed
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection control approach. The report does not explain what specific changes were needed.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to your infection control approach since the August 2020 inspection?
- 02How are new residents tested, and what arrangements are now made for shielding after admission?
- 03How do you control visitors and manage social distancing and hygiene in the home?
- 04How do you make sure staff receive up-to-date infection control training?
- 05If agency staff are needed, how will you keep staffing consistent between shifts?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not provide ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 September 2020 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, January 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor suggestions about door security and accessibility.
The unannounced inspection took place on 22 November 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, a relative, staff, the manager and a healthcare professional. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, staff training, recruitment checks and quality records.
The home was supporting 42 people and could accommodate up to 44. Inspectors found that people felt safe, staff understood their needs, medicines were managed safely and staffing levels were suitable. People were supported with food, drinks and access to healthcare.
People described staff as kind, respectful and helpful. They were involved in care decisions, supported to remain independent and offered activities and contact with people important to them. The home had meetings, surveys and a complaints process.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection in 2016. The inspection also looked in detail at oral health support as part of a national review.
Safe medicines support
Inspectors found that staff administered medicines in line with the home's procedures. Staff training and checks of their competence were in place.
“People were provided with their medicines in a safe way.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People reported positive relationships with staff. Inspectors observed staff spending time with people and providing calm, reassuring support.
“People experienced positive caring relationships with the staff team.” from the report
Personalised care
People and, where appropriate, relatives were involved in care plans. Staff used information about people's history, preferences and needs to plan support.
“People received care based on their individual assessed needs.” from the report
Support for independence
People were encouraged to make choices and do as much as possible for themselves. They could maintain relationships with relatives and friends.
“People were encouraged and supported to maintain their independence whenever possible.” from the report
Open management
The manager was visible and approachable. People and staff could give their views through meetings, surveys, supervision and everyday conversations.
“The service was consistently managed and well-led.” from the report
Door security
minorSome people wanted extra security for a door lock or a key. The manager said this would be arranged.
“Some wanted extra security of a door lock or key for a door lock already in place.” from the report
Heavy doors
minorOne wheelchair user said some doors were heavy and suggested automatic controls. The manager said they would follow this up.
“I am a wheelchair user and the doors are large [heavy].” from the report
- 01What action was taken about the request for extra security or a key for the door lock?
- 02Has anything been done to make the large, heavy doors easier for wheelchair users to open?
- 03How will you support my relative's oral hygiene and access to dental care?
- 04How often will my relative's care plan and risks be reviewed if their needs change?
- 05How are residents and relatives' views used to change activities, care or the running of the home?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, including the premises and care, with an additional detailed review of oral health support as part of a national review. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 January 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 Stoneygate Oaklands
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicester
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 £1,270 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Tino was the most wonderfully rounded, empathetic and intuitive person. He not only developed a great relationship with Neville but also had a great working relationship with our existing carer.”
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.