You are here

Stoneacre Lodge Residential Home Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 5 September 2017

This inspection took place on 31 July 2017 and was unannounced. This means prior to the inspection people were not aware we were inspecting the service on that day.

Stoneacre Lodge is a care home that provides care for up to 31 older people, some of whom were living with dementia. The home is located in the village of Dunsville, near Doncaster. On the day of our inspection there were 27 people living in the home.

The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, 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.

Our last inspection at Stoneacre Lodge took place on 30 November 2016. The home was rated as Requires Improvement. We found the home to be in breach of regulations for safe care and treatment and fit and proper persons employed. Requirement actions were given for these breaches in regulation and the registered provider was told to make improvements. On this inspection we checked improvements the registered provider had made. We found improvements had been made relating to fit and proper persons employed. However there were still improvements needed in relation to regulation 12, safe care and treatment. Sufficient improvements had not been made to meet all regulations.

The registered provider had a policy and procedure in place for the safe management of medicines. Staff were not always working in accordance with this policy which could put people at risk of not being kept safe and well.

There was a risk staffing levels could be insufficient for people’s needs to be met in a timely manner. This was because the registered provider or registered manager did not use a dependency tool to assess the number of staff required against the dependency levels of people who used the service.

Checks of the fire systems and fire fighting equipment were not always carried out at the frequency requested by the registered provider.

We received positive feedback from people who used the service and their relatives. People we spoke with told us they felt safe and relatives also said the home provided safe care.

Staff employed at the home had been recruited in a way that helped to keep people safe because thorough checks were completed prior to them being offered a post.

Staff were not given appropriate support through a programme of regular and on-going supervision and appraisal.

People said they enjoyed the meals provided to them and there was plenty of choice. People could choose to eat their meals either in the dining room or their own room. At lunchtime staff were busy which meant some people had to wait to be assisted to eat.

Staff and people who used the service were mutually respectful. People were seen enjoying the company of staff and staff spoke with people in a polite and caring way. We saw staff advising and supporting people in a way that maintained their privacy and dignity.

The registered provider had a complaints policy and procedure; however written records of complaints and concerns received were not kept.

A limited programme of social activities was in place and people who used the service wanted to be involved in more social activities and outings. An additional activity worker had been recruited and was due to start at the home within the next few weeks.

Staff said communication in the home was very good and they felt able to talk to the managers' and make suggestions. There were meetings for people who used the service, relatives and staff where they could share ideas and good practice.

People and their relatives had been asked their opinion of the quality of the service via surveys and by the regular meetings with the managers.

We identified the current audit systems were not robust enough to effectively assess, identify and act upon, risk and improvements required at the service, in order to demonstrate compliance with regulations.

We three found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the registered provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 5 September 2017

The service was not always safe.

The service had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines, however these were not always followed by staff.

There was no system in place to assess staffing levels against people’s needs. This meant there was a risk of not enough staff being provided to meet people’s individual needs.

Fire system checks were not always carried out in a timely manner, which could put people’s safety and well-being at risk.

Staff were recruited after thorough checks were completed, which helped to keep people safe from harm and abuse.


Requires improvement

Updated 5 September 2017

The service was not always effective.

Staff were not supported through a regular programme of supervision and appraisal.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff had an understanding of, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.



Updated 5 September 2017

The service was caring.

Staff were caring and supportive when providing care to people.

People's privacy and dignity was respected and staff knew how to maintain people's confidentiality.


Requires improvement

Updated 5 September 2017

The service was not always responsive.

A record of complaints and the outcomes and actions taken in response to complaints and concerns was not kept.

There was very little planned social activity available to people.

People had care plans that were reviewed regularly.


Requires improvement

Updated 5 September 2017

The service was not always well led.

New audit processes in place needed to be embedded and robust to ensure risks were identified and quickly rectified.

Staff told us they felt they had a very good team. Staff said managers in the organisation were approachable and communication was good within the service.

People who used the service and their relatives were asked their opinions and felt listened to.