Stanley House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 was working to improve how people were placed at the centre of their care and treatment choices and was working to improve how they worked in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

We observed some staff provided person-centred care. For example, we observed staff brushing a person’s hair as they found this calming and another staff member talked to a person about their past, where they had lived and their favourite railway journeys. We saw staff had recently celebrated a person’s birthday. However, there were occasions when person-centred care could be further improved. For example, staff gave people clothing protectors at lunchtime without checking their preference for these and some people spent time in lounge areas or their own bedrooms with limited engagement from staff.

There was limited evidence in care plans that people had been involved in keeping these under review.Leaders at the service told us they had identified the new electronic care plans were not as person-centred as they wanted them to be and they were trying to improve opportunities for people’s involvement in these. They told us the continuing development of the electronic care planning system would lead to improvements in person-centred care. Leaders had also provided person-centred care training for staff to help further support the development of person-centred care practices.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People’s needs were assessed before they were supported to move to Stanley House. This allowed plans to be put in place to help ensure their care needs could be met. One person told us, “The staff have made the whole process easy for us.” Whilst a relative told us, “The staff have been very helpful here with the process.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s care plans identified if they had any specific communication needs and staff showed us how they accessed this information. The registered manager told us they would make sure people’s relatives were present for any important health review if this helped people to understand what was being discussed. We observed staff taking their time to explain aspects of a person’s care to them so that they understood what was being offered.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

No-one we spoke with told us they had needed to make a complaint, but all felt able to do so if needed. For example, one person told us, “I would talk to the manager if I had a problem, but touch wood, I’ve had no issues so far.” Some people were aware of meetings for people and their relatives, and relatives felt kept up to date. One relative told us, “I can’t get here for the meetings, but they send emails with any news.” While another relative added, “They keep in touch well if anything happens and we get general news too.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff told us they reviewed people’s care regularly and they had a good working relationship with the GP practice and other external agencies. Records showed other healthcare professionals, for example, speech and language therapists, were referred to when people needed this.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People told us they saw the visiting GP and had access to hearing tests, opticians and chiropody visits. This helped ensure people continued to receive the care they needed. People who had a learning disability were supported to have an annual learning disability health check and attended external activity groups specifically tailored for their needs.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

No-one was receiving end-of-life care at the time of our assessment. However, people had been supported to make advance plans so their choices and preferences could be followed at an appropriate time. One relative told us, “We have done a Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (RESPECT) form with their GP at home, and we have re-done it since they have moved here.” Where any anticipatory medicines had been prescribed to help promote people’s comfort during end-of-life care these were held safely within the medicine storage. Nurses had been trained in how to administer these when needed. A relative confirmed, “[All their wishes] have been documented and the special medication is here if it is ever needed.”