CQC report explained · a residential care home
Stonesby House
147 Stonesby Avenue, Wigston, Leicester, LE2 6TY
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found unsafe or unsuitable equipment, poor cleanliness and maintenance problems. Staffing, recruitment checks, safeguarding arrangements and medicines were generally safe.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- The building was worn and needed renovation, and some care plans did not fully describe the care provided. People were supported with food, healthcare, training and legal decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection, so its previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection, so its previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality checks and daily oversight had not identified important safety and environmental problems. There was no service improvement plan, although managers were open to feedback and acted promptly when inspectors raised concerns.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and safe medicines, but unsafe equipment, a tired environment and weak oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection over three visits in November 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files, training and management records. They inspected the environment on each visit.
People generally had enough staff, received their medicines safely and were supported by trained staff. Inspectors found kind and friendly relationships, suitable support with food and healthcare, and evidence that people's choices and legal rights were considered.
However, some equipment was unsafe or used for the wrong purpose. The home was not always clean or well maintained, and much of it was worn and needed renovation. Management checks had not found these problems, and there was no service improvement plan.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection in 2019 to Requires Improvement. This inspection only assessed Safe, Effective and Well-led. The Caring and Responsive ratings were not reassessed and were carried forward from the previous inspection.
Safe medicines
People received their prescribed medicines safely. Staff were trained and assessed as competent, and medicines records and storage supported safe practice.
“People received their prescribed medicines safely. People told us they felt well supported with their medicines.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and safe recruitment checks were in place.
“People were supported by enough staff. One person told us, "We're in good hands, there are plenty of staff.” from the report
Kind atmosphere
People appeared comfortable with staff, and relatives described staff as friendly and welcoming. People and staff could raise concerns or make suggestions in meetings.
“The atmosphere in the service was relaxed and friendly. People seemed comfortable around staff and spoke fondly about them.” from the report
Food and healthcare support
People were supported to eat and drink enough, including people with specialist dietary needs. The home worked with health and social care professionals and supported people to attend appointments.
“People with specialist dietary requirements, and people who needed support with their meals, were supported in a dignified and caring way.” from the report
Prompt response to feedback
Managers acted straight away when inspectors raised concerns, including ordering a mattress, securing furniture and improving some cleaning and equipment problems.
“The deputy manager and provider were open to feedback during the inspection and took immediate action when concerns were raised.” from the report
Unsafe equipment
seriousOne person was given a crash mat instead of a mattress for sleeping. Furniture was not fixed in place and could have fallen and caused injury.
“One person was provided with a crash mat instead of a mattress for sleeping. This put the person at risk of injury and was not dignified.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousMonthly audits and daily oversight had not identified the unsafe sleeping arrangement or the environmental problems. There was no service improvement plan.
“Quality assurance systems were not always effective. For example, monthly audits had not identified the lack of cleanliness or environmental improvements required.” from the report
Incomplete care plan details
minorSome care plans did not contain full details of the care staff provided, although inspectors did not find concerns with the care being delivered.
“We identified some care plans that did not contain full details of the care provided by staff.” from the report
Missing financial authorisation
needs fixingOne person was being supported with their finances without the necessary authorisation in place. Managers completed an assessment promptly after inspectors raised this.
“We identified 1 person who was being supported with their finances, without the necessary authorisations in place.” from the report
- 01What work has been completed to remove mould, limescale and dirt, and how will you keep the home clean?
- 02Which equipment and furniture have been checked and secured since the inspection?
- 03What is the timetable for renovating the worn areas, and where is the service improvement plan?
- 04How do you now check that care plans fully describe the care each person receives?
- 05What action has been completed following the breach of Regulation 17, and how will you show that management checks are finding problems promptly?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward from 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 January 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.
Every inspection of Stonesby House
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- January 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 January 2011.
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.
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.
Other services run by Stonesby House Ltd
1 other service on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.