You are here

We are carrying out checks at Sue Ryder - Stagenhoe Park. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 16 June 2017

This inspection took place on 23 and 26 May 2017 and was unannounced. Sue Ryder- Stagenhoe Park provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 50 people with a physical disability including progressive neurological disorders such as Huntingdon's disease. On the day of the inspection, there were 41 people living in the home.

The service 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.

People were safe and they were protected against the possible risk of harm or abuse by staff who were knowledgeable about safeguarding processes.

Risks to people had been assessed and managed appropriately. There were sufficient numbers of trained, experienced and skilled staff to meet people`s needs safely. Medicines were administered safely; however stock counts and carried forward medicines were not always accurately done. This was addressed by the management during the inspection process.

People received care and support from staff who were motivated, supported, trained and competent in their roles. People’s nutritional and health care needs were met. They had access to and received support from other health care professionals.

People who lived at the home were positive about the care and support they received from staff. They were involved in planning their care and support and if they were not able to do so their rightful representatives or independent advocates ensured the care was in their best interest.

People were treated with respect and their privacy and dignity was promoted.

People’s health care needs were assessed, reviewed and delivered in a way that promoted their wellbeing and improved their quality of life. People were supported to pursue their hobbies and interests by a team of activity workers.

There were regular opportunities provided to people, relatives and staff to give feedback about the service. Regular surveys were conducted.

Relatives were extremely appreciative of the positive impact the personalised care and support delivered by staff had on their loved ones.

The registered manger and the head of care carried out a number of audits, medicines, infection control, falls and environmental audits. We found that were issues were identified an action plan was developed and only when these were completed were signed off.

Inspection areas



Updated 16 June 2017

The service was safe.

People received their medicines safely by appropriately trained staff, however stock counts and carried forward medicines were not always done accurately.

People and relatives told us the care people received was safe and they had no concerns. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding procedures.

Risks to people were assessed, discussed, reviewed regularly and managed effectively.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people`s needs in a timely way. Recruitment processes were robust and ensured staff working at the home were fit to do so.



Updated 16 June 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were appropriately supported and trained to support people effectively.

Staff were knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act and worked following its principles.

People’s dietary needs were met and staff involved health care professionals in people`s care to promote their health.



Updated 16 June 2017

The service was caring.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

People and their relatives where appropriate were involved in decisions about people`s care.

People’s choices and preferences were respected and end of life wishes upheld.



Updated 16 June 2017

The service was responsive.

People received care and support which was personalised and took account of their likes and dislikes.

People were supported to pursue their hobbies and interest by a team of activity workers.

There were no recent complaints received at the home, however people and relatives told us they knew how to raise concerns if they had to.



Updated 16 June 2017

The service was well-led.

There was a caring culture at the home and the views of people were listened and acted on.

Staff were clear on their roles and responsibilities and were proud to work at the home.

Regular audits were carried out to assess and monitor the quality of service.