CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stratton House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Stratton House rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-managed care, but some people experienced long waits for call bells.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 12 August 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control. They spoke with seven people, three visitors, five staff and two health professionals.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe was rated Good and Well-led was rated Good. People said they felt safe, medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed and infection control arrangements were satisfactory.
There was mixed feedback about staffing levels. Inspectors saw call bells sometimes ringing for a long time, including one occasion when a bell rang for 21 minutes. The registered manager said staffing numbers were being reviewed.
The rating means inspectors found the service meeting the relevant standards in the areas checked. The other three questions, Effective, Caring and Responsive, were not assessed during this focused inspection.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse.
“I do feel safe; having the staff around when you need them is part of it” from the report
Medicines were managed safely
Staff were trained and checked as competent to give medicines. Records showed medicines were given as prescribed, with safe storage and monitoring.
“Medicines administration records showed that people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Risks were assessed
Inspectors found regular reviews of risks such as falls, choking and skin damage. Care plans gave staff detailed, person-centred guidance.
“All assessments had been reviewed regularly. Care plans provided detailed and person-centred information.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff described the management team as approachable. Quality checks covered areas including medicines, care plans and infection control.
“There was a quality assurance system in place to assess the standards of care in the service.” from the report
Kind atmosphere
Relatives described staff as caring and the atmosphere as friendly. Health professionals also described the service as warm and person-centred.
“Staff are genuinely very caring, and the atmosphere is so friendly too.” from the report
Call-bell delays
needs fixingPeople, relatives and staff gave mixed views about staffing levels. Inspectors observed call bells sometimes ringing for a long time, including one occasion lasting 21 minutes.
“On one occasion the bell rang for 21 minutes.” from the report
- 01What was the outcome of the review of staffing numbers?
- 02How quickly are call bells answered now, and how is this monitored?
- 03What happens if a resident needs urgent help while staff are attending another person?
- 04How are residents' views about food being addressed?
- 05When will Effective, Caring and Responsive next be assessed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other three ratings were not reassessed and the previous overall rating from 2019 remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 September 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, November 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with clear improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 16 and 17 October 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, visitors, staff and managers. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, staff files, policies and the home environment.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were happy with the care. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, kind staff, personalised care plans and a good range of activities.
There were some issues during the inspection. Two people had a specific health risk but staff did not yet have all the necessary training, and one person did not have suitable guidance in their care plan. Some improvements were made before the inspection ended.
The previous inspection rated the home Requires Improvement and found a breach about governance. This inspection found enough improvement and no current breaches. The overall Good rating means the inspectors judged the service to be performing well, although it still had areas to keep improving.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were stored, administered and checked safely. Staff took time to follow people's preferences and their competency was checked.
“Medicines were managed and administered safely which was an improvement since the last inspection.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff treated people with dignity and respect. They supported choice, privacy and independence, and knew the people living at the home well.
“Throughout the inspection staff were knocking on bedroom doors before entering.” from the report
Personalised care and activities
Care plans included people's needs, preferences and communication methods. People took part in activities inside and outside the home, including community activities.
“People participated in a wide range of activities both within and outside of the home.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The home had addressed the earlier problems with medicines, laundry and governance. Inspectors found that the previous governance breach no longer applied.
“Enough improvement had been made at this inspection and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 17.” from the report
Training for specific health risks
needs fixingTwo people with a particular health condition were supported by staff who did not yet have the necessary training. Some training was sourced during the inspection.
“However, two people at risk due to a specific health condition were being supported by staff who did not have necessary training in place.” from the report
Guidance for memory problems
minorInspectors said the home could do more to help some people with memory issues find their way around.
“However, further consideration could be made to support other people with memory issues.” from the report
Capacity records
minorOne person's records included two decisions on the same capacity assessment and best-interest decision. The manager later told inspectors that changes had been made.
“However, one person had two decisions on the same capacity assessment and best interest decision.” from the report
- 01What training do all staff now have for the specific health conditions affecting people living at the home?
- 02What written guidance is in place for people who may be at risk because of these health conditions?
- 03How do you help people with memory problems find their way around the home?
- 04How do you check that capacity assessments and best-interest decisions are recorded correctly?
- 05What changes were made after the previous inspection, and how do you check that the improvements are maintained?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 November 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 Stratton House
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
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
25 live-in carers within about an hour of Bath and North East 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 £1,030 to £1,320 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She enabled mum to lead a high quality life in her own home until the very end and Lena and her family became close personal friends to me and my family.”
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.