Archived: Stoneleigh

Updated 9 March 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

The inspection was conducted by one inspector.

Service and service type:

Stoneleigh is a care home registered to accommodate up to 11 people who need support with personal care. The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.’

Notice of inspection:

We did not give notice of our inspection.

What we did:

Before the inspection we reviewed information we had received about the service, including previous inspection reports and notifications. Notifications are information about specific important events the service is legally required to send to us. We also considered information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection we observed the support that people received, spoke with people and staff and gathered information relating to the management of the service.

This included:

• Two staff recruitment files

• Staff training records

• Five people’s care records

• Audits and quality assurance reports

• Six people using the service and two relatives

• The provider, the registered manager and two members of care staff

Updated 9 March 2019

About the service:

Stoneleigh is a residential care home registered to provide accommodation for up to 11 people, including people living with a mental health condition. There were eight people living at the service at the time of the inspection.

People’s experience of using this service:

• People and their families told us they felt the home was safe. There were enough staff to support people in a timely manner. However, we identified that some pre-employment checks had not been completed when two staff members started working at the service.

• Medicines were managed in accordance with current regulations and guidance. There were systems in place to ensure that medicines had been stored and administered appropriately.

• Individual and environmental risks were managed appropriately, which meant people were kept safe from avoidable harm.

• Staff received a variety of training and demonstrated knowledge, skill and competence to support people effectively. Staff were supported appropriately by the provider and the registered manager.

• People were supported by staff with their nutritional and hydration needs. People were offered choice at mealtimes and menus contained a variety of nutrition and healthy foods.

• People had access to health and social care professionals where required and staff worked together co-operatively and efficiently.

• Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. Staff had developed positive relationships with people and their relatives and knew what mattered most to them.

• People had a clear, detailed and person-centred care plan in place, which guided staff on the most appropriate way to support them.

• People, their relatives and staff members commented positively about the leadership of the service and felt that the service was well-led. The provider was engaged with the running of the service and was approachable to people and staff.

• There were appropriate auditing systems in place, which ensured that issues were acted upon and ideas for improvement were responded too.

Rating at last inspection:

The service was rated as good at the last full comprehensive inspection, the report for which was published on 10 August 2016.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the previous inspection rating.