Stable Steps Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We observed staff generally were kind and caring when supporting people. For example, staff were mostly patient and attentive whilst assisting people to eat their meals. We received mostly positive feedback about how people were cared for. One person told us, “I can’t fault how they [staff] look after me, they are very kind.” Another person told us, “They [staff] are marvellous here the way they look after me.” One relative commented, “They help [relative] with everything and I come in regularly and they are always very nice with them and they always look clean and well dressed.” Another relative told us, “I am extremely happy [relative] is here and being well looked after and I can tell that [relative] happy and content as well.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

It was not always evident people were treated as individuals and care plans did not always contain personalised details, such as information about people’s preferences for their care and support choices. People told us there was generally a consistent staff team, who understood their needs with one person commenting, “They know how to help me and if they don’t, I just tell them what I want simple as that.”

We observed where people required closer supervision for their safety, there was limited engagement between the staff and that individual. We found the high staffing levels at the home were not consistently used as opportunities to improve people’s quality of life and promote independence and autonomy.After the draft report was sent to the provider, they told us they had made several improvements to their care plans relating to people with enhanced observations. We will review these and their impact on our next inspection.

We noted people’s dignity was not always considered as staff did not always speak about people’s needs in respectful terms or ask discreetly when offering people support with continence care. People, especially those who required constant supervision, did not always have their privacy maintained.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

We received mixed feedback about how people were supported to remain independent and make decisions about their daily lives. One person commented, “I do a lot myself. They [staff] do their best. If I need anything I just ask.” However, care records did not always reflect how independence was being maintained or encouraged for people. People generally told us their choices were respected by staff but it was not always clear that people were able to make meaningful choices. One person told us, “I have a shower about 2 times a week. They tell me when I can have one.”

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Although there was sufficient staffing levels at the home and several people were receiving enhanced funded care in the form of 1:1 or 2:1 support by supervising staff, we observed general staff were not always able to respond to people’s immediate needs. This was due to a language barrier, or their lack of training and guidance, on how to respond appropriately to someone who cannot always communicate their needs due to their cognitive impairment. We observed 2 staff members trying to get one person to go to the bathroom who did not want to go, the staff members repeatedly said the person’s name and told them to “get up” and “let’s go”. The staff members did not try any alternative methods to communicate with the person and continued to repeat their requests.

We received mixed feedback about how quickly staff responded to people’s requests for help. One person commented, “Sometimes when we ring the bell we have to wait because they are busy. It can be 5, 7 or 10 minutes. They’ve got a lot of other people to sort out.” We observed general staff, who were not providing enhanced support, were very busy and often had to focus on tasks rather than spending time meaningfully engaging with people.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they were happy in their role and felt supported by the provider. They did not raise any concerns with us during our inspection about their employment or the management of the home. However, we found staff had to complete their e-learning for their role in their own time and were not paid for this.

Staff were very helpful, kind, accommodating, and positive during our site visits and feedback from people and visitors was mostly positive.