You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 24 August 2018

The inspection took place on 7 June 2018, and was unannounced.

Stanbridge House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The care home can provide accommodation and personal care for 27 people in one detached building that is adapted for the current use. The home provides support for people living with a range of physical, sensory and mental health needs, including people living with dementia. There were 22 people living at the home at the time of our inspection. One person who had been staying at the service for respite left the home during the morning of the inspection.

The service had a registered provider. A registered provider is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered managers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection on 19 January 2016, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good overall.

The provider’s quality assurance systems and processes were not consistently robust in relation to the recording of medicines guidance to inform staff practice. For example, staff did not always have access to detailed records or guidance to support the safe administration of people’s prescribed or ‘as required’ medicines. However, this did not impact on people’s wellbeing.

People’s capacity was considered in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) guidance. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies in the service supported this. However, the provider’s quality assurance systems did not consistently ensure people’s capacity to make specific decisions had been fully recorded including; for example, where their capacity may fluctuate. People were supported to have choice and control in their lives by staff that aimed to support them in the least restrictive way. The provider was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People and relatives told us they felt the service was safe. One person told us, “Since I’ve been here, I’ve never seen any abuse” and “I’m not frightened living here. My family know I’m safe and can come as much as they can and want to.” People remained protected from the risk of abuse because staff understood how to identify and report it.

Staff felt well supported to carry out their roles, and were appropriately trained. The registered provider was open to staff developing their skills and the home further through additional training and discussions in staff meetings.

Staff supported people to eat and drink and their nutritional needs, food preferences and ethical choices were met. One person told us, “The food’s pretty good, and when there is something on the menu I don’t like, they will do something else.” Where special dietary needs were required in relation to people being at risk of malnutrition staff followed guidance given by care plans and the health professionals.

People’s relatives told us and we saw that the staff were attentive, kind and respectful. One person told us, “They are a happy lot of girls here and are very caring.” Care and support provided was personalised and met peoples’ diverse needs. People and their relatives were included in the assessment of their needs and development of care plans that promoted their independence. One person told us, “Staff do sometimes ask about things in my care plan,” and “Yes, I do feel involved in decisions.”

A range of meaningful social activities were offered to people daily. One person told us, “There seems to be enough to do an

Inspection areas



Updated 24 August 2018

The service was safe

People�s medicines were administered safely.

People were supported by staff who had received training and recognised the potential signs of abuse and knew what action to take. People and staff were confident that the provider would take concerns seriously and act on them.

Accidents and incidents were recorded, investigated and actions taken to reduce risks. Risk assessments were developed to support staff

There were sufficient staff to meet people�s needs and safe recruitment processes were followed.



Updated 24 August 2018

The service was effective

Staff understood and worked towards the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People and their relatives told us that their preferences and choices for care and were respected.

People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing and had access to healthcare services.

People were cared for by staff that knew them well, had received training and had the skills to meet their needs.



Updated 24 August 2018

The service was caring.

People were cared for by staff that were attentive, caring and knew them well.

People�s diversity and rights to maintain important relationships were respected by staff that would adjust their approach to meet their needs.

People were listened to and involved in the planning of their care. People were treated with dignity and respect.



Updated 24 August 2018

The service was responsive

Care records and plans gave guidance to staff to ensure people�s preferences were known and that they received consistently personalised care

People and their relatives received information about the service in a way that they understood. Complaints and concerns were listened to and responded to effectively.

Staff were sensitive to the needs of people living in the home and gave people time to make the decisions about how they wanted to spend their time. People had access to meaningful activities.


Requires improvement

Updated 24 August 2018

The service was not always well led

Quality assurance systems and processes did not always ensure people�s records were complete. Medicines and capacity records did not always provide staff with enough detail and guidance.

Staff communicated effectively and in a timely way with relatives and health professionals in relation to the health and wellbeing of people

The provider was committed to improving the quality of the home and worked with partners to inform best practice.