Stonebridge Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Prior to people moving to the home, a pre-assessment was carried out to ensure the service was able to meet people’s needs effectively and to check the service had access to any relevant equipment required to support people. Care plans were reviewed regularly to ensure any changes were clearly documented.

The provider always planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider acknowledged their accountability for the delivery of care and, following an assessment of needs, people were offered evidence-based care and treatment that aligned with the latest legislation and standards.

We were assured that the care and support delivered by staff reflected the latest good practice and evidence-based research; people were cared for in a consistently evidence-based way. There was a collaborative approach to care delivery – every member of staff was respected for their views and their contribution valued.

Staff were positive about their training and the benefits this provided them to better support people. Staff were positive and complimentary about their colleagues and how well they worked together, to support each other to help ensure people received the best care possible.

People were visibly happy being supported by the staff team and knew each of the staff who supported them well.

Staff worked well with other professionals such as GP’s and nurses and followed their advice when it came to supporting people. If people required assessment from an external health or social care team, we saw the service had made prompt referrals and followed up on required actions. Staff told us they had extremely good relationships with external bodies such as GP’s and community service providers.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Positive comments were received about the food on offer; kitchen staff were fully aware of people’s dietary needs and meal preferences, all of which were regularly updated in communications to the catering staff. The chef told us they had no limit to their food budget and people could have what they wanted, when they wanted. Each unit within the home had different menus and choices to match the preferences of the individuals living there. This meant the kitchen provided over 100 different menu choices each week.

Mealtimes were a positive experience; people were supported in a calm environment, and we observed staff to be patient and reassuring when assisting people with their meals.

The management team had ensured they were working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA.

We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty; CQC had been made aware of these via statutory notifications.

The management team had ensured they were working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA.

We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty; CQC had been made aware of these via statutory notifications.