Stonedale Lodge Care Home

Updated 4 November 2025

Date of Assessment: 18 November to 1 December 2025. Stonedale Lodge is a care home with nursing and provides accommodation for up to 180 people over 6 units. At the time of the assessment the provider was not providing nursing care. There were 55 people living at the home across 2 units.

We carried out this assessment due to the current rating of the service and continuous breaches of regulation found at the previous assessment. We carried out a site visit to the home on 18 November 2025, with the remainder of the assessment being conducted offsite. We assessed 20 quality statements from the key questions safe, caring and well-led.

We found some improvements had been made; however, these were recent and there was limited evidence to demonstrate they were embedded or sustained. The provider remained in breach of regulations relating to safe care and treatment, and good governance. As a result, the overall rating for the service remains Inadequate.

People were not always provided with safe care and treatment. Safety incidents were not consistently reviewed or analysed to identify root causes or ensure lessons were learned to prevent recurrence. Risks to people were not consistently monitored in line with their individual risk management plans. This included people at risk of developing wounds, malnutrition and dehydration.

People’s needs were not always met because there were not enough staff with the appropriate skills and experience to provide safe and effective care. Staff told us there were insufficient staffing levels to meet people’s needs in a timely way, which impacted on the quality and consistency of care and support provided. Some staff had not completed essential training required for their roles, increasing the risk of care not being delivered in line with best practice or people’s assessed needs.

Parts of the environment and equipment were unsafe or unclean, placing people at increased risk of harm. Daily checks and audits did not identify ongoing environmental or infection prevention and control (IPC) concerns, including the unsafe storage of personal protective equipment (PPE) and unsafe disposal of clinical waste.

Not all visitors were signing in and out of the units, which compromised the security of the premises and posed potential risks to visitors in the event of an emergency.

Although the management of medicines had improved, further work was required to ensure medicines were consistently stored safely, accurately recorded and administered at the correct times.

There had been some improvements to people's dignity and respect. However, some medical procedures were observed taking place in communal areas without efforts to ensure privacy. Some people did not always have access to basic personal items, such as toiletries. In addition, people’s belongings were sometimes stored in other people’s bedrooms or communal bathrooms rather than in their own designated spaces.

Although activities were available, their delivery was limited due to insufficient staffing levels to support or facilitate them. Staff told us their wellbeing and ability to provide person‑centred care were negatively affected by work pressures and uncertainty regarding their future employment.

Continuous changes in management and leadership have led to inconsistencies in the operation of the providers governance systems and processes. The providers processes and systems did not effectively assess, monitor, and improve the quality and safety of the service. Managers roles and responsibilities were not clearly defined with some managers providing conflicting information about their managerial responsibilities. There was a lack learning and improvement across the service despite continuous breaches of legal regulations over multiple inspections conducted by CQC and concerns identified by other stakeholders. Staff reported experiencing low morale within the team. They told us there was a lack of clear leadership direction, limited support and insufficient communication from management.

The management of people's finances and personal possessions had improved.

The provider remains in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.

The provider was previously in breach of regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, dignity and respect and good governance. Although some improvements were found the provider remained in breach of regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance.

The provider was previously in breach of regulations in relation to dignity and respect. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

Updated 4 November 2025

Not everyone using the service was able to verbally communicate with us, so we spent time observing people’s experiences and speaking with family members. People told us they felt safe living at the home, and family members told us they were confident their relative was kept safe. One person said, “Yes, I feel safe here,” and family members commented, “We do feel [relative] is safe here and well looked after” and “No concerns about [relative]’s safety.”

People and family members described staff as kind and caring. However, they raised concerns about staffing levels. One person told us, “Staff are really busy, I always have to wait, just not enough staff.” Family members told us, “Care staff are lovely but just not enough of them” and “Happy with the care but do feel there is not enough staff.”

Family members told us they were kept informed about their relative’s wellbeing, including when incidents occurred or when there were changes in their health, such as the need to attend medical appointments. Relatives confirmed there were no visiting restrictions, although some chose to avoid visiting during mealtimes.

People and family members knew who the manager was and felt they were approachable. One person said they had, “Only met [manager’s name] once but would feel comfortable to raise any concerns if needed, just don’t see [manager’s name] on the unit.” A family member told us, “[Manager’s name] has dealt with things; I have seen them on the unit a couple of times.”