CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stuart House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured about most infection control arrangements, including PPE, testing, visiting and outbreak management. They were only somewhat assured about the premises because of laundry storage and incomplete cleaning records.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected or rated in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected or rated in this targeted inspection, although people and relatives gave positive comments about staff.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected or rated in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not inspected or rated in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection controls in some areas but concerns about laundry and cleaning records.
This was a short-notice, targeted inspection on 24 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, COVID-19 vaccination, and whether staffing pressures were affecting people.
The home was clean and free from unpleasant smells. Inspectors were assured about visitors, testing, personal protective equipment, social distancing, admissions and managing outbreaks. People and relatives said staff were kind and helpful, although there had been staffing difficulties during COVID-19.
Inspectors found that clean laundry was stored in the same area as dirty laundry. Cleaning records did not always show that high-touch areas had been cleaned as required. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Kind and helpful staff
People and relatives told inspectors that staff were nice, kind and helpful.
“Staff are nice. Nothing has ever been a problem” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff and visitors had access to PPE, and inspectors were assured that it was being used effectively and safely.
“We use surgical masks, gloves and aprons. There is plenty” from the report
COVID-19 checks and visiting
The home carried out checks for visitors and staff and supported people to receive visits and keep in touch with relatives.
“Systems were in place to ensure staff and visitors had COVID-19 checks undertaken in line with government guidance.” from the report
Laundry handling
needs fixingClean laundry was kept in the same area as dirty laundry, with a sluice in the laundry room. Inspectors recommended reviewing this approach to reduce infection risks.
“We also found clean laundry was kept in the same area as dirty laundry and a sluice was situated in the laundry room.” from the report
Cleaning records
needs fixingCleaning schedules did not always show that high-touch areas, such as banisters and door handles, had received the required enhanced cleaning.
“Cleaning schedules were not always completed to demonstrate enhanced cleaning had taken place to high touch points such as banisters and door handles” from the report
Vaccination arrangements
minorOne staff member had not received a second COVID-19 vaccination at the time of inspection. The manager confirmed that an exemption form was in place and that vaccination had been booked.
“At the time of our inspection one member of staff had not received their second vaccination.” from the report
Staffing pressures
minorPeople said there had not always been enough staff during the pandemic. The manager said vacancies had since been filled and staffing was improving.
“It's been difficult because of COVID-19. Not always been enough staff” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to keep clean laundry separate from dirty laundry?
- 02How often are banisters, door handles and other high-touch areas cleaned now, and how do you check this?
- 03Has the staff member who had not received a second COVID-19 vaccination now been vaccinated?
- 04How many staff and agency workers are currently supporting people, and has staffing remained improved since the inspection?
- 05How do you monitor infection control risks identified in the manager's audits?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other key questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 March 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, September 2019
Rated Good overall, but Safe was Requires Improvement because staffing and medicines checks were not always reliable.
This was an unannounced planned inspection. Inspectors looked at the home, care records, medicines, staffing, training, complaints and management records. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional.
People were described as safe, treated with kindness and supported by staff who understood their needs. Care plans were personalised, staff were trained, people received suitable food and drink, and healthcare support was arranged when needed.
The main weaknesses were in medicines records, staffing arrangements and quality checks. The home did not use a dependency assessment tool to show that staffing levels matched people's needs. Some medicines stock records and 'when required' medicine protocols also needed improvement.
The overall rating stayed Good, as did Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Safe was reduced from Good to Requires Improvement. The report says the home will continue to be monitored and inspected as part of the CQC programme, or sooner if needed.
Kind and respectful care
People were supported by staff who were friendly, caring and respectful. Inspectors saw staff communicate calmly and protect people's privacy and dignity.
“The atmosphere was homely. Staff appeared kind, caring and friendly and spoke in a respectful manner to people.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's life histories, interests and preferences. Staff understood how people wanted to be supported.
“Care plans were person centred, individualised and relevant to the person.” from the report
Trained and supported staff
Staff received induction, ongoing training and supervision. Inspectors saw staff working confidently and asking experienced colleagues for advice.
“The training record we reviewed showed staff received continual training in subjects to meet the needs of the people they supported.” from the report
Food and healthcare support
People were offered choices of food and drinks, and their nutrition and hydration were monitored. The home worked with healthcare professionals when people needed support.
“People were well supported with hydration. We observed people were continually offered drinks throughout the day.” from the report
Staffing levels
seriousFeedback about staffing was mixed. Some people, relatives and staff said there were times when there were not enough staff, especially at night or when several people needed help.
“The service did not use any form of dependency assessment tool or have any system in place to ensure staff level deployment was safe and met people's needs.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousPeople generally received medicines as prescribed, but some stock records were incorrect, some 'when required' protocols needed improvement and there were gaps in storage temperature records.
“We found for one person the recorded stock of two of their medicines were not correct.” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingThe home's audits had not found the staffing and medicines problems identified during the inspection. The provider was asked to review its systems.
“Medicines audits had not identified the issues we found at this inspection.” from the report
Some care records needed updating
needs fixingOne person's health risk plan and another person's moving and handling information did not fully reflect their current needs. The manager said these would be corrected.
“One person had a health condition and a detailed risk management plan had not been created.” from the report
- 01How do you decide how many staff are needed on each shift now, especially at night and when people need help at the same time?
- 02What dependency tool or other system is now used to check that staffing levels meet people's needs?
- 03How do you check medicines stock balances and 'when required' medicine protocols?
- 04How often are medicine room and fridge temperatures recorded, and what happens if a record is missed?
- 05How have you improved audits so that staffing and medicines problems are identified promptly?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the overall service and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 September 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 Stuart House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of North 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 £1,050 to £1,320 a week. 19 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.