Stamford House Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

There was a breach of regulation as the provider lacked oversight and whilst systems for checks and audits were in place they were not completed sufficiently robustly to ensure improvements were driven. We found shortfalls in how oversight was maintained in areas such as staffing levels and recruitment, as well as the environment and management of individual risk. Staff felt supported by the management team and there were opportunities to share ideas in meetings and raise concerns where needed.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff were happy in their role and felt positive about the service. Staff told us there were staff meetings and they felt listened to and able to raise concerns.

Processes were not always effective in ensuring people were treated as individuals and in a person-centred way. People talked about certain aspects of care such as continence care being delivered in a way that was not tailored to individual need or in line with preferences. The systems for oversight were not identifying this or ensuring preferences or action to mitigate risk were being consistently followed.

Staff told us they felt well supported with one staff member commenting, “The managers are nice and you can speak to them about anything. It’s a nice place to work.”

The registered manager was moving to a regional role at the service. A new manager had been appointed and told us they were in the process of submitting their application to CQC. However, in this interim period, the roles and responsibilities of each manager were not always clear. The manager was seen to be helpful and kind. One family member told us, “[The manager] has really helped us. [Manager] is trying to get funding and get my relative a physio to mobilise them.”

Staff all told us they felt able to raise their concerns. One staff member told us, “I feel able to share what's going well and what could be better.”

The service had policies in place to support staff to speak up about any concerns. No recent concerns had been raised.

Staff told us they felt they all worked together well and the home had a positive environment to work in. One staff member said, “The staff really get on and pull together.”

Equality and diversity policies were in place at the service.

At the time of the assessment, there was an ongoing period of change with the management team at the service. During the assessment, the management team were responsive to the findings and started to implement some improvements.

Audits were carried out at the service. These processes were not always an effective way to monitor the service. For example, records for care plan audits for 2024 showed that only 5 care plans had been audited and therefore the management team would not have an accurate overview of the quality of care plans in place and has not identified the shortfalls we found in care records at the time of the assessment. we identified multiple care plans that required further information around risk and details around people’s preferences. The service’s dependency tool was not being effectively updated to ensure it accurately reflected people’s needs. The service had not identified this information was not being suitably recorded or the challenges experienced by staff when providing daily support. Health and safety audits were being conducted. However, the information these audits relied upon was not always readily available, so it was unclear how the information to complete the audits had been obtained.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff felt able to feedback ideas. They told us there were regular staff meetings and these provided an opportunity to discuss their views.

The service had audits in place. However, these required further scrutiny to drive improvements at the service. People were supported across two floors. At the time of the assessment, the upstairs shower room was not working. The maintenance records showed this was an ongoing problem and meant that people had to go downstairs to shower. There was no clear solution to this concern, and it was unclear the impact for people had been recognised.