Archived: Stamford Court

Updated 22 April 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 31 March 2021 and was announced.

Updated 22 April 2021

Stamford Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Stamford Court is registered to provide nursing and personal care for up to 40 people. At the time of our inspection there were 27 people living at 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. Although the registered manager was new to her post, we found she provided good leadership and was committed to maintaining and improving standards. There was managerial oversight of the home through the provider’s quality team.

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 1 and 2 October 2018. We last inspected the home in July 2017, when we identified five breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because medicines were not managed safely, assessments of risk were not always completed or updated accurately, recruitment checks of agency staff were not sufficiently robust, the provider was not acting in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), records monitoring care and treatment provided were not accurate or complete and the provider had failed to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. The provider sent us an action plan following the inspection, which explained how they would make the necessary improvements. This inspection was to review the action plan and check if the improvements had been made. At this inspection, we found improvements had been made and the service was no longer in breach of the regulations.

The home was clean, well-maintained and attractively decorated and furnished. There were effective infection control and prevention measures in place. Checks and servicing of equipment, such as for the gas, electricity, passenger lift and hoists were up-to-date.

Systems were in place to help safeguard people from abuse. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding matters, how to identify signs of abuse and what action to take to protect people in their care. Risk assessments had been completed to show how people should be supported with everyday risks.

Medicines were managed safely. Medicines records we viewed were accurate and up to date.

Checks had been carried out to ensure staff, including agency staff, were suitable to work in a care setting with vulnerable people. At the time of our inspection there were sufficient staff to respond promptly to people’s needs.

Staff had completed training in a variety of topics. This provided them with the knowledge and skills to support people safely. All staff received regular supervision. This ensured the standard of their work was monitored and gave them the opportunity to raise any concerns.

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff sought people’s consent before helping and supporting them.

Staff worked closely with health care professionals to ensure people were supported to maintain good health. People were supported to eat a well-balanced diet and were offered a choice of home-cooked meals. The service provided a range of social events and activities for people living at the home.

We observed staff interacting with people who used the service in a kind and caring way. People's privacy and dignity were respected.

The service had a formal process for handling complaints and concerns. Records we checked showed complaints had been dealt with appropriately. People and relatives were encouraged to give feedback about the service.

People's care plans contained detailed information about how they wished staff to support them. However, we found a few of the care monitoring charts we reviewed were incomplete.

The registered manager worked collaboratively with the local authority, clinical commissioning group and other professionals involved in people's care. In March 2018 an embargo on newly commissioned placements was imposed on Stamford Court by the commissioners of the service. The provider developed an action plan and worked closely with the commissioners to provide them with assurances that the actions were being implemented. The embargo was lifted in June 2018 when both the commissioners and the provider felt the improvements were sustainable.

The new registered manager was committed to maintaining and improving the standard of care provision at the home. Staff told us they felt supported by the manager. Audits and quality checks were undertaken on a regular basis and any discrepancies addressed with appropriate actions.