CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Stuart House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding procedures, risk assessments were reviewed, medicines were administered safely and there were enough staff.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training, supervision and appraisals. People's health, dietary and support needs were assessed, and staff worked with health and social care professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and respectful. Inspectors saw that people's privacy, dignity, choices, relationships and personal preferences were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personal and regularly reviewed. People were supported with activities, complaints, future decisions and communication needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a clear management structure, regular staff meetings and quality checks. People's and others' views were collected and used in improvement plans.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with effective management.
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection on 04 January 2019. The inspection was brought forward after information about safeguarding incidents involving challenging behaviour. Inspectors spoke with two residents and four staff, observed care, checked two care records and four staff files, and reviewed complaints, accidents, incidents and quality checks.
The home supported up to 11 people with mental health needs and learning disabilities who did not need nursing care. Two people lived there at the time. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, had suitable risk assessments, received their medicines safely and had enough trained staff.
Inspectors saw kind and respectful relationships. Care plans reflected people's needs, choices and interests. People had access to health professionals, activities and complaint procedures. The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
The previous inspection on 28 March 2017 also rated the home Good. Inspectors found that this rating remained supported and found no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Risk management
Individual risks were recorded and reviewed as people's circumstances changed. Staff also tracked incidents and referrals to help identify patterns and respond earlier.
“Risk assessments were regularly reviewed and updated in line with people's changing circumstances.” from the report
Kind, respectful care
Inspectors saw calm and positive relationships. Staff respected people's privacy, dignity and choices.
“Staff were kind and respectful, we saw that they were aware of how to respect people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, routines, health needs and interests. People were supported to choose activities and how they spent their time.
“People's care records were up to date and personal to the individual.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The manager carried out regular checks, including monthly audits of accidents and incidents. The provider also gathered feedback from people, staff, professionals and relatives.
“Accident records were kept and audited monthly by the manager to look for trends.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you meet my relative's specific mental health or learning disability needs?
- 02What would you do if my relative's behaviour or mental health needs changed?
- 03How are relatives involved in care planning and reviews, and how are their views used?
- 04Who is currently responsible for managing the home while the new manager's registration application is completed?
- 05What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative?
This was a comprehensive inspection of the home and care provided, covering all five CQC questions; the ratings remained Good, as at the previous inspection in 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 February 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.
What inspectors found, May 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with support focused on health and independence.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 28 March 2017. They spoke with two people, staff, the manager and health and social care professionals. They observed care, checked records, staffing, medicines, the building and quality checks.
Three people were living in the home at the time. The home supports up to 11 people with mental health needs and learning disabilities who do not need nursing care. Inspectors found that people felt safe, staff knew their needs and there were enough suitable staff.
People were involved in their care plans and daily choices. Staff supported people with medicines, meals, health appointments, activities and developing skills for greater independence. Inspectors found respectful relationships, regular reviews and an open management team.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. This was the home's first rated inspection since it registered in 2015, and the report records no breaches or enforcement action.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding, individual risks and how to respond if someone's mental health or behaviour changed.
“People were protected against the risk of abuse; they felt safe and staff recognised the signs of abuse or neglect and what to look out for.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw positive relationships between staff and people. Staff respected privacy, dignity, choices and different ways of communicating.
“We observed that staff had developed very positive relationships with the people who used the service.” from the report
Support for independence
People were encouraged to make decisions, take part in activities and develop everyday skills. Support was adapted to individual needs.
“People were always motivated, encouraged and supported to be actively engaged in activities inside and outside of the home.” from the report
Good health support
The home kept health action plans, supported people to attend appointments and worked with mental health and other healthcare professionals.
“People had health action plans in place which were written in a way that the person could understand.” from the report
Regular quality checks
The manager used monthly audits, meetings, surveys and action plans to review the service and identify improvements.
“We found that the provider had effective systems in place for monitoring the home, which were fully implemented.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and review my relative's mental health needs, risks and personal goals?
- 02How many staff would support my relative during the day, at night and when going out into the community?
- 03How would my relative be involved in decisions about care, medicines, CCTV and the electronic keypads on the doors?
- 04What activities and independence skills could my relative work towards, and how would their choices shape the plan?
- 05How would you work with my relative's GP, mental health team and other healthcare professionals?
This was an unannounced first rated inspection covering all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 May 2017 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 Stuart House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 July 2015.
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
91 live-in carers within about an hour of Medway
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 £1,250 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.