CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stronvar Rest Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control arrangements during a targeted coronavirus inspection.
This was a targeted inspection on 02 February 2021. It looked at how the home was preventing and controlling infections during the coronavirus pandemic. The visit was announced 24 hours beforehand because of lockdown visiting restrictions.
Inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, arranged testing, followed social distancing and shielding rules, and had an up-to-date infection-control policy. They also found documented cleaning checks and separate laundry loads for each person.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating. It only reports on the infection-control areas examined during this visit.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had measures to prevent and manage infections, including an up-to-date policy.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Testing and PPE
The home carried out testing for residents and staff and used protective equipment safely.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Cleaning records
Cleaning was recorded, checked and audited by the registered manager.
“All cleaning processes were documented, monitored, and audited by the registered manager” from the report
Laundry arrangements
Laundry was handled in separate loads for each person, with records kept.
“Laundry was done in separate wash loads for each person to ensure no cross contamination and well documented.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
Visitors could speak with relatives through patio doors without entering the home or stepping over the threshold.
“Visitors do not step over the threshold at the home however can chat and visit with relatives through the glass patio doors.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are residents and staff tested now, and what happens if someone tests positive?
- 02How do you currently manage visits and contact between residents and their relatives?
- 03How often are cleaning processes checked and audited, and can families see the records?
- 04Are separate laundry loads still used for each person?
- 05When was the infection prevention and control policy last updated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 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, March 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but the Effective rating was Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 24 January 2019. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and managers. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training records, complaints and quality checks.
The home was clean, warm and homely. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, good infection control and strong links with health professionals. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and staff knew them well.
There were important gaps. As-needed medicines were not always monitored for their effect. Care plans did not contain enough information about people's lives and preferences. Staff needed better understanding of dementia, anxiety and depression. The home was not following the Mental Capacity Act properly at the time of the inspection, although action was taken immediately afterwards.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Effective was rated Requires Improvement. The previous inspection had the same overall rating and the same Requires Improvement rating for Effective.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with compassion and supporting their independence. People and relatives said staff were kind and that nothing was too much trouble.
“Staff treated people with compassion in care interactions. They knew people living at the service very well.” from the report
Safe environment
The home was clean and warm. Safety checks covered equipment, water temperatures, mattresses and moving and handling.
“The environment that people lived in was homely, warm and clean and there was a constant program of improvements.” from the report
Good food and dietary support
The cook and catering assistant understood people's allergies, preferences and dietary needs. Meals were freshly prepared, flexible and offered with choice.
“The cook and catering assistant had excellent understanding of people's dietary needs and preferences.” from the report
Strong health links
The home worked well with district nurses, speech and language therapists, the GP practice and the local NHS dementia service.
“Staff had excellent relationships with the district nurse team, speech and language therapists and the local GP practice.” from the report
Visible leadership
The provider and manager regularly spent time with people and staff. They were described as approachable and acted quickly when safety issues were identified.
“The provider was transparent, approachable and committed to ensuring those living at the service received good quality care.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act not followed
seriousAt the inspection, the home had not properly assessed some restrictions, including a person's attempts to leave and the use of bedrails. The manager applied for the relevant authorisation and reviewed restrictions immediately afterwards.
“At the time of the inspection the service was not complaint with the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.” from the report
As-needed medicines not monitored
needs fixingOne person's as-needed medicine for agitation and anxiety was not monitored to check whether it was effective. The report recommended better recording of medicine preferences and monitoring.
“One person with complex mental health needs was in receipt of PRN medication for agitation and anxiety but this was not being monitored to ensure it was being affective to support the person's needs.” from the report
Staff training gaps
needs fixingInspectors found that staff needed better skills to recognise and support people with anxiety, distress and mental health conditions. One interaction was dismissive in tone and manner.
“Care staffs understanding of dementia, and mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression needed improvement.” from the report
Care plans lacked detail
needs fixingCare plans did not contain enough information about people's lives, preferences, wishes and interests. Inspectors recommended making them more person-centred.
“Care plans had very little information about people's lives, preferences, wishes and previous interests.” from the report
End of life wishes not recorded
minorThe home had not explored people's end of life preferences consistently. The manager was not familiar with the relevant end of life care framework.
“Care plans did not always include whether end of life wishes had been discussed with people.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make sure every restriction, including bedrails and attempts to leave, is assessed under the Mental Capacity Act?
- 02How do you monitor whether as-needed medicines for pain, agitation or anxiety are effective?
- 03What training have staff completed on dementia, anxiety, depression and supporting people in distress?
- 04How are care plans now updated to record each person's life history, preferences, wishes and interests?
- 05How do you record and review people's end of life wishes?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 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 Stronvar Rest Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 March 2014.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.