CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Stubblefields House
Not yet rated: the CQC has not published a rated inspection for this home, which is usual for a new registration.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Stubblefields House was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found avoidable safety risks, poor infection control, staffing shortfalls and care that was not always personal.
This was a focused inspection after concerns about visiting arrangements. Inspectors looked at Safe, Responsive and Well-led. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was not always safe. Risks such as window safety, fire evacuation, water safety and legionella had not been properly managed. Infection control was also weak, and the home was not always clean and tidy. There were not enough staff, which affected cleanliness and people's access to the community.
People did not always receive care based on their individual needs, interests and choices. The communal lounge was being used as a staff sleeping area. Management systems had not found or dealt with these problems, and records were sometimes incomplete or inaccurate. The provider took some action during the inspection, including improving cleaning and infection control.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection, published in January 2018, to Requires Improvement. The inspection found breaches of regulations, and CQC asked the provider for an action plan and said it would monitor progress and return.
Positive relationships
People and relatives gave positive feedback about the home. People had developed positive relationships with staff and the management team.
“People and their relatives shared positive feedback about the service.” from the report
Communication support
Care plans covered people's communication needs, and some information was available in accessible formats.
“Care plans were in place to ensure people had support with their communication needs.” from the report
Open to feedback
The management team accepted the inspectors' feedback and began addressing some problems during the inspection.
“The management team were receptive to feedback and started taking action during the inspection to address some of the areas we identified.” from the report
Risks were not managed
seriousRisks to people, staff and the environment had not always been identified or reduced. This included window safety, fire evacuation, water safety and legionella.
“Risks to people were not safely managed. Risks to people and staff had not been identified and no action taken to mitigate the risks.” from the report
Infection control
seriousThe home was not always clean and some handwashing, waste and protective equipment arrangements were unsuitable. The provider made improvements during the inspection.
“The service was not always clean and tidy. One toilet did not have appropriate flooring down so it could not be effectively cleaned.” from the report
Staffing and training
seriousThere were not enough staff to run the home safely. Staff did not always have the training or competency checks needed for their roles, including support with epilepsy.
“There were insufficient staff employed to run the service safely. The registered manager and acting manager were consistently on shift whilst also carrying out their own roles.” from the report
Care was not personal enough
seriousBlanket decisions were made for the home instead of decisions based on each person. Care plans had not been reviewed to support hobbies, interests and social needs during the pandemic.
“Blanket decisions were made as a service rather than on an individualised basis meaning people did not always receive care centred around them.” from the report
Management oversight
seriousQuality checks had not found important problems. Records, including health, supervision, induction and recruitment records, were not always complete or accurate.
“The lack of management oversight meant the service had failed to identify people's care plans had not been reviewed or updated to meet their needs during the pandemic.” from the report
- 01What action has been completed to manage risks linked to windows, fire evacuation, water safety and legionella?
- 02How many staff are now on each shift, and how do you assess whether staffing meets each person's needs?
- 03What training and competency checks have staff completed for epilepsy, medicines and other health conditions?
- 04Can people now use the communal lounge freely, and how are their hobbies, interests and community activities supported?
- 05How are you checking that care plans, health records, recruitment records and other records are complete and up to date?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led, while the ratings for Effective and Caring were not assessed on this occasion and the overall rating used earlier ratings for key questions not looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 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, January 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with only minor improvements suggested for records and money checks.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 8 November 2017. Inspectors spoke with eight of the ten people living at the home, staff and managers. They looked at care plans, risk assessments, recruitment files, medicines records and the home’s environment.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe, staff were kind and respectful, and care was based on people's needs and choices.
Inspectors found safe medicines management, enough staff, suitable training, regular care plan reviews and activities in the home and community. They suggested that some care records could contain more detail and that a second person should check money transactions.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff knew how to recognise and report possible abuse. Risk assessments and safety checks were in place.
“All the people we spoke with told us that they felt safe living at this service.” from the report
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people’s needs. Recruitment checks included references and Disclosure and Barring Service checks.
“Staff numbers were sufficient to meet the needs of people living at this service.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were observed to be friendly, polite and respectful. They listened to people and supported their privacy, choices and independence.
“We observed staff to be kind and friendly towards people and heard a lot of friendly banter during the day.” from the report
Personalised activities
People chose activities that matched their interests, both at the home and in the community. Staff supported people to take part.
“People identified the social activities that interested them and that they wished to pursue.” from the report
Regular quality checks
The home used audits, surveys and reviews to monitor its work. Inspectors found the quality monitoring system effective.
“The quality monitoring system was effective with regular audits being carried out.” from the report
Some care plans needed more detail
minorCare files were person-centred and kept up to date, but inspectors said some areas would benefit from more detail.
“People's care files were person centred and kept up to date although they would benefit from more detail in certain areas.” from the report
Money checks could be stronger
minorMoney records were clear, signed and balanced. Inspectors suggested that a second person should check and sign transactions for additional protection.
“We suggested that it would provide some protection for staff if a second person checked and signed all transactions.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure care plans contain enough detail about each person’s needs and preferences?
- 02How are money transactions checked now, and does a second person sign them?
- 03How do you review a person’s care plan when their health or support needs change?
- 04What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative?
- 05How do you make sure medicines are stored, checked and given safely?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 January 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 Stubblefields House
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- February 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 September 2013.
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
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of Yorkshire
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 £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
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.