We carried out a review of the data available to us about Stanton Lodge on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Stanton Lodge, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service:
¿ The registered manager understood people’s needs very well and managed Stanton Lodge in an open and inclusive way. They were very passionate about providing excellent quality care to people which resulted in people’s needs being met appropriately.
¿ People used a service that prided itself on being very caring and flexible to meet people’s individual needs.
¿ Staff went over and above their usual care duties to form trusting and caring relationships with people and their relatives.
¿ Feedback from people and their relatives was all very positive. One person said, “You really feel you are under their [staff] wing. It's the caring that's so wonderful. You wouldn't get it for a million pounds.”
¿ Detailed and effective audits and monitoring systems were in place to ensure records were up to date.
¿ People felt safe living at the service and were supported by staff who knew how to protect them from harm and abuse.
¿ Information in people’s support plans was informative and person centred, giving staff details on how the person wanted to be supported.
¿ The staff had the skills and experience to provide effective care. Staff had received regular training to provide safe care.
¿ Systems were in place to ensure people received their prescribed medicines safely.
¿ People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The service met the characteristics of Good in Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well Led and Outstanding in Caring.
Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated good (report published 23 September 2016).
Why we inspected: This inspection was a scheduled inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service to ensure that people receive safe, compassionate, high quality care.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
This inspection took place on 27 and 29 July 2016. This was an announced inspection which meant the provider had prior knowledge that we would be visiting the service. This was because the location provides a domiciliary care service, and we wanted to make sure the manager would be available to support our inspection, or someone who could act on their behalf.
At the time of our inspection a registered manager was not in post at the service. The registered manager had left employment with the service and had notified The Care Quality Commission (CQC) of this change. A new manager had been employed and had been in post for eight days at the time of our inspection and was in the process of applying to CQC to be the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run. The manager was available throughout the inspection.
The new manager had recognised the historical challenges the service had faced and was in the process of identifying shortfalls and making improvements. People using the service, their relatives and staff had experienced a period of instability from the service, but told us they had seen improvements and felt that positive changes were now being made.
Quality monitoring of the service was in place; however there were gaps in the recording of events including safeguarding and complaints. The manager had addressed this and an action plan was in place.
Systems were in place to manage risk and protect people from abuse. Staff were aware of their responsibilities and knew what actions they needed to take to ensure people were protected.
Staff were appropriately trained and skilled. They received a thorough induction when they started working for the service. They demonstrated a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities. Staff had completed training to ensure the care and support provided to people was safe and effective to meet their needs.
People who use the service and their relatives were very positive about the care they received. Comments from people and their relatives included “I have always regarded the staff as being my extended family, I’m looked after well” and “The carers are really good, I can’t fault them, they always ask, even if the person can’t make choices they still ask”.
The care records demonstrated that people’s care needs had been assessed and considered their emotional, health and social care needs. People’s care needs were regularly reviewed to ensure they received appropriate and safe care, particularly if their care needs changed.
Health professionals we spoke with told us partnership working had not always been well-led by the service resulting in several visits being made in the same day and time being wasted. We raised this with the manager who explained that people living at Stanton Lodge are in their own private flats, and it is not always within the service's remit to make these appointments.
We examined records, minutes of meetings and surveys completed by residents and by staff. People told us "staff were always very caring and efficient" and another person stated 'we have every assistance'. A visitor told us that the staff at Stanton Lodge were approachable and "staff were never a problem and always good" with their parent, they also said that their relative and their family felt they were safe there.
We found that people had been involved in planning their care, and staff were familiar with people's needs. Staff had received appropriate induction and training and their manager provided them with regular supervision. Staff were also supported through a system of appraisals.
The provider had effective systems in place to ensure the CQC were notified of safeguarding incidents. Safeguarding and complaints information was displayed in the communal areas for the staff and residents to refer to and we saw relevant information and advice on reporting abuse was provided to residents in their induction packs.
The provider's quality assurance systems were effective in ensuring the performance of Stanton Lodge was adequately monitored and the views of people living there were taken into consideration.
We found that people had been involved in planning their care, and staff were familiar with people's needs. Staff had received appropriate induction and training and their manager provided them with regular supervision. Staff were also supported through a system of appraisals.
The provider had effective systems in place to ensure the CQC were notified of safeguarding incidents. Safeguarding and complaints information was displayed in the communal areas for the staff and residents to refer to, and information reference reporting abuse was provided to residents in their induction packs.
The provider's quality assurance systems were effective in ensuring the performance of Stanton Lodge was adequately monitored, and the views of people living there were taken into consideration.
People were involved in planning and reviewing their care and were provided with detailed information about the services that were available to them.
People told us they felt safe and were able to raise concerns or issues if the need arose.
Staff said they were well supported by each other and by the registered manager and they thought they worked well as team. Staff had completed training in the tasks they performed and were well informed about the needs they were employed to meet.