Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Lifeways Community Care

231 Stafford Road

231 Stafford Road, Wallington, SM6 9BX

Goodpublished 16 February 2024, 2 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
Inspectors found enough trained staff, better risk assessments, suitable fire safety arrangements, improved infection control and safe medicines systems.
Effective?
Good
Care records were complete and personalised. Staff received training and supervision, and people were supported with food, healthcare, independence and communication.
Caring?
Good
No separate rating was given in this report.
Responsive?
Good
No separate rating was given in this report.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
Management arrangements and quality monitoring had improved, but there was no registered manager and the improvements needed to be embedded and sustained.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2024

Rated Good overall; safe and effective care improved, but well-led was Requires Improvement and the home had only recently left Special Measures.

This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 27 November 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, a relative, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care and staff records, medicines, finances, incidents and the home environment.

Inspectors found clear improvements since the previous inspection. There were enough trained staff, care records were up to date, risks were better managed, medicines were checked properly and the environment had been improved. People were supported with choice, independence, activities and healthcare.

The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Effective were rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because there was no registered manager in post and the improved management systems still needed to become consistent and lasting. The home was no longer in breach of regulations or in Special Measures.

What inspectors praised
  • Staffing improved

    All permanent care staff posts had been filled, with no agency staff rostered. Inspectors found enough trained and supervised staff to meet people's needs.

    At this inspection we found there were enough trained and supervised staff available to meet people's needs safely and effectively.from the report
  • Safer care planning

    People had up-to-date, personalised plans showing what they could do independently and what support they needed.

    People's support plans were personalised and noted what people could do for themselves and what they required support with.from the report
  • Medicines managed safely

    Staff were trained to give medicines, records were completed and medicines were stored securely. Managers and healthcare professionals audited medicines.

    Staff completed medicines administration records (MAR) appropriately to confirm people had receive the right medicines at the right times.from the report
  • People involved in daily life

    People helped plan their activities and took part in meetings about their care, food and activities.

    People contributed to their weekly activity plans. These plans listed people's care and support needs throughout the week.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • No registered manager

    needs fixing

    There was no registered manager when inspectors visited. A relative said frequent changes in managers affected continuity.

    Managers are coming and going, which doesn't help the service There is no continuity.from the report
  • Leadership needs to settle

    needs fixing

    The deputy manager was supported by managers from other services and the area manager. The report says the management improvements were not yet fully established.

    The service management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.from the report
  • Improvements must last

    minor

    Quality checks had improved, but inspectors said they needed to be embedded and sustained over time.

    Quality assurance processes had improved to enable monitoring, and drive improvements at the service. These need to be embedded and sustained.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Has a registered manager now been appointed, and how will you provide continuity while that appointment is completed?
  2. 02How do you check that the improved quality assurance systems continue to identify and fix problems?
  3. 03How are staffing levels maintained if permanent staff are absent or people's needs change?
  4. 04How do you make sure each person's swallowing, nutrition, fire safety and health guidance is followed every day?
  5. 05How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care plans, activities and environmental changes?

This was an unannounced follow-up inspection of action required after the previous inspection; where key questions were not inspected, previous ratings were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 February 2024 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of 231 Stafford Road

4 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. February 2024Goodcurrent ratingup from Inadequate
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at 231 Stafford Road

  2. September 2023Inadequatedown from Good
    Safe: InadequateEffective: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. August 2017Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. December 2014Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. September 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. January 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. July 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. November 2010

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 November 2010.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

Same provider

Other services run by Living Ambitions Limited

10 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.

Riverswey

Guildford, GU23
Good
Residential
Rated 7 years agocare home
Nearby

Other care homes near Wallington

David House

Wallington, SM6 · 0.7 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 7 months agocare home

Raleigh House

Wallington, SM6 · 0.9 km
Good
Residential
Rated 5 months agocare home

Cranley Gardens

Wallington, SM6 · 1.1 km
Good
Residential
Rated 18 months agocare home

Ryelands

Wallington, SM6 · 1.5 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 3 years agocare home

Park Hill House

Wallington, SM6 · 1.5 km
Good
Residential
Rated 3 years agocare home