You are here

Care at Stennings Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 22 January 2019

The inspection took place on 28 and 29 November 2018 and was announced.

Care at Stennings is registered to provide accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, for a maximum of eight people. At the time of the inspection eight people with a learning disability were living at Care at Stennings. Accommodation is provided in eight single bedrooms within two houses which are linked together by a conservatory. Each house has a shared kitchen, dining room and lounge. The gardens at the front and rear are secluded and accessible to the people living at the home.

Care at Stennings is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service was built and registered before the publication of the Registering the Right Support best practice guidance. However, it is in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. One of the providers was also registered as a registered manager at Care at Stennings. 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 provider had not ensured that we were notified of all safeguarding incidents, which they are required by law to do.

People were supported to have choice and control in most aspects of their lives and staff them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service had not always supported this practice. However, this was addressed by the registered manager following the inspection.

Quality assurance systems and the actions taken were variable. Areas highlighted for improvement, had not always been acted on. However, other quality assurance completed had been used to improve the service.

People told us that they felt safe at Care at Stennings. Risks to people and about the environment were considered and managed. Risks around infection control were mitigated.

There was a positive and person-centred culture. People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. One person’s relative told us, “He loves going back there.” People’s privacy and dignity was protected. People knew how to make complaints and felt confident to talk to staff or the registered manager if they needed to.

People’s health, social, physical and emotional needs were assessed for each person and their support planned for. People were involved in reviewing their support and setting goals to achieve or maintain. People were encouraged to be independent where possible and take part in household tasks.

People were supported to access regular healthcare support as needed. Medicines were managed safely.

People took part in activities which matched their interests. One person told us, “I go out on the bus, to the cinema and shopping.” Some people attended colleges and day centres. Some people took part in voluntary work.

Staff were recruited using safe recruitment practices. New staff were supported with an induction training programme. Staff received regular training and supervision to ensure they had the right skills to support people. One person told us, “I like them, I get on well with staff.” Staff worked well together and in partnership with other professionals and agencies.

People, their relatives and staff’s views of the service provided were sought. The provider regularly visited the se

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 January 2019

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe and lessons were learnt when things went wrong.

Risks to people and about the environment were assessed and mitigated.

There were sufficient staff available to support people.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 22 January 2019

The service was not always effective.

The service had not always complied with the MCA. People had not always been involved in assessments of their capacity to make decisions.

People were supported access healthcare support.

Staff worked with each other and other organisations to support people.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 January 2019

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness and compassion.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

People were involved in making day to day decisions about their support.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 January 2019

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care.

People took part in activities which were tailored to their interests.

People understood how to make a complaint and were confident to.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 22 January 2019

The service was not always well-led.

The service had not correctly notified us of things that had happened at the service. Quality assurance checks which highlighted this had not always been acted upon.

The day to day culture was positive and person centred.

The service worked in partnership with other agencies.