CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 26 Stockdove Way
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found medicines were stored safely and accurately recorded. They also found enough trained staff, suitable risk plans and systems to protect people from abuse and infection.
- Effective?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating for Effective. It says staff worked with health professionals and supported people to maintain their health and wellbeing.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating for Caring. Inspectors described compassionate, empowering care that was tailored to people's needs and choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, communication methods, choices and goals. People were supported to see family and friends, join activities and use the local community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective audits, management oversight and a positive, person-centred culture. The home involved families and staff and learned from complaints and incidents.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Support for Living Limited - 26 Stockdove Way is rated Good; inspectors found safe, personalised care and improvements since the last inspection.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 12 July 2022. Two inspectors met people living at the home, observed care, spoke with staff and relatives, and checked care records, medicines, incidents, complaints, audits and part of the building.
The home supported seven adults with learning disabilities and autism, although it could accommodate up to eight people. Inspectors found people were safe, supported to make choices and helped to take part in activities and community life.
The home was rated Good overall, with Good ratings for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. The report says improvements had been made since the previous inspection, when the service was rated Requires Improvement and was in breach of regulations.
Improved medicines management
Medicines were safely stored, recorded and audited. Staff had their knowledge and skills checked, and work with health professionals had helped reduce some people's medicines.
“People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Medicines were safely stored, accurate records were kept and there were regular audits” from the report
Personalised communication
Staff understood different ways people communicated, including signs, objects, pictures and photographs. Communication and sensory plans explained how each person's needs should be met.
“The staff demonstrated a good awareness of people's individual communication needs and helped to facilitate communication with others.” from the report
Choice and community life
People were supported to make choices, develop skills, see people important to them and take part in activities and outings.
“People made use of the local community and enjoyed outings with staff to pursue individual interests.” from the report
Learning and oversight
The home used audits, meetings and management oversight to identify concerns and improve care. It investigated complaints and incidents and shared learning.
“When concerns or problems were identified, there were plans to address these and lessons were learnt” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and support my relative's individual communication and sensory needs?
- 02How will you help my relative take part in activities, outings and community life?
- 03How will you review my relative's medicines and check whether they can safely manage more of them independently?
- 04How do you make sure risk plans stay up to date, including plans about choking, eating and drinking where relevant?
- 05How will the home involve our family in decisions, care planning and reviews?
This was an unannounced inspection focused on applying the Right support, right care, right culture principles; the report gives current ratings for Safe, Responsive and Well-led, but not separate ratings for Effective or Caring. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 July 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, May 2021
Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe medicines management and weaknesses in the systems used to monitor quality.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 31 March and 1 April 2021. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led, after a serious injury raised concerns about safe support with mobility. They reviewed records, spoke with staff, relatives and professionals, and checked infection control.
The home had enough staff, safe recruitment checks, safeguarding arrangements and suitable infection control measures. People had personalised care and risk plans. However, medicines were not always managed safely. Records about medicine patches and some staff competency checks were incomplete or overdue.
The systems for checking quality had not found these problems. Inspectors also found that moving and handling guidance was spread across two care planning systems, so staff could not always access up-to-date information. The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led, and overall.
The home had been rated Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published on 5 December 2019. The report says enough improvement had not been sustained, and the home had been rated Requires Improvement for the last two consecutive inspections.
Enough staff
Inspectors found sufficient staffing at the visit. Staff responded promptly and respectfully to people's needs.
“Staffing rotas at the time of our inspection indicated sufficient staffing levels and that people were supported by a consistent team.” from the report
Clean and prepared for infection control
The home was clean, staff used protective equipment safely, and testing and infection control arrangements were in place.
“The home appeared clean and free of offensive odours on the days we visited.” from the report
Personalised support
Care and risk plans reflected people's needs and preferences. The report says the model of care promoted choice, control and independence.
“People had personalised care and risk management plans in place.” from the report
Safeguarding arrangements
Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns. Records for handling people's money were up to date and checked.
“Staff we spoke with had completed safeguarding awareness training and told us they found this helpful.” from the report
Medicine patches were not fully recorded
seriousThere was no record of where a person's pain relief patches were applied, and no clear instruction not to reuse a site for at least three weeks. Inspectors said this placed the person at risk of harm.
“There was no record of where on the person's body staff applied the patches and no clear guidance for staff to not re-use a patch site for at least three weeks.” from the report
Medicine competency checks were overdue
seriousSome annual checks of staff competence to support people with medicines had not been completed. Medicine information in care records was also missing or not up to date in some cases.
“We saw that the annual reviews of some staff competency assessments had not been completed, which was not in line with national guidance on managing medicines in care homes.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
seriousThe provider's audits had not identified the medicines issues. Inspectors found the quality monitoring systems were not robust enough to show that safety was being managed effectively.
“However, this system of checks had not been consistently effective as it had not identified the issues we found during the inspection.” from the report
Moving and handling guidance was split
needs fixingGuidance was held across two care planning systems. Some staff were unsure where to find information about safely supporting people with mobility needs, such as using a hoist.
“This meant there was a concern staff could not always access up to date guidance on how to support people safely with their mobility needs.” from the report
Visitor plans were incomplete
minorThe home had infection control arrangements, but people did not have individual visitor risk plans to support person-centred visiting arrangements.
“However, people did not have individual visitor risk management plans in place to promote person-centred visitor arrangements, in line with current national guidance.” from the report
- 01How are medicine patches now recorded, including the exact application site and the time before a site can be reused?
- 02Have all medicine support competency assessments and medicine information in care records been reviewed and brought up to date?
- 03How is moving and handling guidance now kept in one system, and how do you check every staff member can find and follow it?
- 04What action was included in the provider's plan responding to the Regulation 12 and Regulation 17 breaches?
- 05How are individual visitor risk plans now used for people living at the home?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried over from previous comprehensive inspections and were not inspected at this visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 May 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.
Every inspection of 26 Stockdove Way
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2021Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Ealing
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 £1,300 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“She has an unusual combination of kindness and firmness, is quite unflappable, physically strong, extremely savvy”
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.