Stockingate Residential Home

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 23 February 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Assessment dates were from 7 January 2026 to 26 January 2026. Stockingate Residential Home is a care home for people over 65, providing accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care and may be supporting people who have dementia. The service can support up to 25 people. At the time of the assessment, the service supported 22 people. The assessment was completed combining on-site visits and remote review of documentation. This was a fully comprehensive assessment, looking at all quality statements. We found the service to be in breach of regulation regarding safe care and treatment and good governance. The service was previously rated good in 2022. During this assessment, the service did not always support people to receive safe care and treatment, such as, the safe management of medicines or infection, prevention and control (IPC). The service did not always have safe systems and processes in place to manage and monitor risk to people. However, the service appropriately involved other professionals to manage risk. There was safe staffing in place and recruitment processes were robust, however we did not receive evidence all staff had appropriate training in all areas. People using the service felt safe and staff had appropriate safeguarding training and knowledge. There were processes in place to facilitate a positive learning culture.

There was not always robust assessment of need processes in place due to a lack of effective care documentation. The service did not always provide evidence-based care and treatment for people, such as meaningful activities or monitoring of people’s behaviour. Staff teams and services worked well together. People were not always fully supported to live healthier lives, for example, appropriate diet documentation was not always in place. There was a lack of oversight of monitoring and improving people’s outcomes, despite regular review of care plan documentation. There were not always appropriate mechanisms in place to support consent to care and treatment. For example, there was a lack of effective management of best interest decisions. There was use of personal devices by staff, to take photos and videos of people, without appropriate consent in place.

We observed staff to be kind and caring towards people. Staff knew people well and had a good understanding of people’s individual needs, likes and preferences. The staff responded well to meet people’s immediate needs. We received mixed feedback from people regarding the staff team. People were treated as individuals, and there was supporting documentation in relation to people’s life history, cultural and religious preferences. Staff provided largely positive feedback regarding workforce wellbeing.

The service did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment. For example, people were not always given opportunity to be involved in decisions relating to their care, although relatives had been consulted. There were staff, residents’ meetings and reviews held, however, people were not always provided with accessible information to make informed decisions in relation to their care such as, pictorial menus or safeguarding information. The service worked with external agencies to ensure they had equal access to services when they needed it, although we received mixed feedback from professionals. The service had appropriate processes in place regarding planning for the future. There was a diverse workforce in place.

The service did not have a clear vision that was understood by all staff throughout the service. There was compassionate leadership, however governance systems and processes were not robust to ensure overall oversight or drive improvements within the service. People and staff understood how to speak up and felt confident to raise concerns with leaders. The service largely worked well with local partners. There were processes in place to discuss learning in the service, however, there was a lack of innovation for improvement. The service advised us how they were going to address areas of improvement, having already started to implement changes. Leaders within the service were proactive in making changes to improve following our feedback.