CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stroud Court Community Trust
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective safeguarding, risk management, staffing and medicines systems. Some employment-history gaps had been discussed but were not always recorded, and emergency evacuation plans were still being developed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained, people received support with healthy eating and health appointments, and staff understood consent and best-interest decisions. The system for overseeing training and supervision requirements was being improved.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described and observed as kind, warm and respectful. People were involved in decisions, supported to maintain relationships and given privacy and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised around people's communication, health, behaviour and preferences. People had access to activities at home and in the community, while the home was developing a new approach to increase involvement in daily life.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found strong values, visible managers and systems to monitor quality. The management team and trustees were using audits, feedback and improvement plans to develop the service.
What inspectors found, August 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and improvement work still being completed.
This was an unannounced inspection over three days in July 2018. The inspector spoke with people living at the home, staff, managers, relatives and health professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines, complaints, staff recruitment and training records, and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were supported by staff who knew them well, had detailed care plans, received their medicines safely and had access to health care.
Relatives were overwhelmingly positive about the care and management. The home was also working to update some accommodation and to involve people more in everyday activities. A few records and improvement systems were still being completed or strengthened.
Clear risk support
People had individual risk plans, and staff understood how to respond to changes in mood, health or behaviour. Incidents were reviewed to look for patterns and reduce future risks.
“People were supported in accordance with their risk management plans.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff adapted how they communicated with people and respected their privacy, choices and need for independence. Relatives were very positive about the care.
“We saw staff chatting with people in a friendly and warm way.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, communication styles and possible triggers. Staff supported people with activities, relationships and changes in their lives.
“People received care which was personalised and focused on their individual needs.” from the report
Good management oversight
Managers and trustees used audits, feedback and spot checks to monitor care and identify improvements. Staff and relatives described the culture as positive and progressive.
“The service continued to have strong person-centred values.” from the report
Recruitment records
minorSome gaps or discrepancies in staff employment histories had been discussed at interview but were not always recorded. The manager said this would be added to future interview records.
“Where there had been any discrepancies or gaps in staff's employment history, this had been discussed at interview but not always recorded.” from the report
Training oversight
needs fixingThe system giving the manager an overview of staff training and supervision requirements was still being improved.
“The training coordinator was working on improving the systems which would provide the registered manager with an improved overview of the staff training and supervision requirements.” from the report
Emergency evacuation plans
needs fixingDetailed personal emergency evacuation plans were still being implemented so staff would know how to support each person during an emergency.
“The registered manager was making progress in implementing detailed personal emergency evacuation plans to ensure staff knew how to support each person if an emergency occurred, such as in the event of a fire.” from the report
More involvement in daily life
minorThe home had recognised that people were not always fully involved in daily activities. It was implementing a new approach to increase people's participation and independence.
“The service had recognised that people were not always fully involved in their daily living activities.” from the report
- 01Have the detailed personal emergency evacuation plans now been completed for every person, and how are staff trained to use them?
- 02How do you now monitor staff training and supervision requirements?
- 03How do you make sure gaps or discrepancies in employment histories are recorded during recruitment?
- 04What has changed since the inspection to involve people more in everyday activities such as meals and household tasks?
- 05How are people's changing health and future end of life wishes being discussed and recorded?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, including all five CQC questions, accommodation, care, medicines, staffing, records and quality monitoring. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 August 2018 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 Stroud Court Community Trust
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Stroud Court Community Trust →
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.