You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 August 2018

Stoneswood Residential Home provides accommodation and care for up to 41 people in a semi rural location on the outskirts of Oldham. The home is a converted building with the addition of a modern, purpose built extension. It is set in large grounds together with the provision of retirement accommodation. Personal Care (that is care provided in a person's own home) is available to a small number of people living in 'assisted' flats which provide independent accommodation, but are attached to the main building. At the time of our inspection there were 40 people living at the home.

The service is also registered to provide personal care to a small number of people living in their own self-contained flats. At the time of this visit, the service provider told us no one living in those flats was receiving any personal care provided by the service.

A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 first registered in October 2010 with the CQC but had managed the service prior to CQC registration.

At the last inspection of June 2016 the service were found to be in breach of the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014. Regulation 2014 The need for consent. We found that the home had not submitted applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards for all the people who lived in Stoneswood who did not have the capacity to consent or object to their care and treatment. The service sent us an action plan to show how they were going to meet the regulation and we found that the regulation was met at this inspection.

The service used the local authority safeguarding procedures to report any safeguarding concerns. Staff had been trained in safeguarding topics and were aware of their responsibilities to report any possible abuse.

Recruitment procedures were robust and ensured new staff were safe to work with vulnerable adults.

The administration of medicines was safe. Staff had been trained in the administration of medicines and had up to date policies and procedures to follow.

The home was clean, tidy and homely in character. The environment was maintained at a good level.

Electrical and gas appliances were serviced regularly. Each person had a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) and there was a business contingency plan for any unforeseen emergencies.

There were systems in place to prevent the spread of infection. Staff were trained in infection control and provided with the necessary equipment and hand washing facilities. This helped to protect the health and welfare of staff and people who used the service.

People were given choices in the food they ate and told us it was good. People were encouraged to eat and drink to ensure they were hydrated and well fed.

Staff had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities of how to apply for any best interest decisions under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and followed the correct procedures using independent professionals.

New staff received induction training to provide them with the skills to care for people. Staff files and the training matrix showed staff had undertaken sufficient training to meet the needs of people and they were supervised regularly to check their competence. Supervision sessions also gave staff the opportunity to discuss their work and ask for any training they felt necessary.

Further training was given to some staff to become ‘champions’ in topics like dementia care which enabled them to support staff to provide a better understanding of people with this illness.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 August 2018

The service was safe.

The service used the local authority safeguarding procedures to report any safeguarding issues. Staff had been trained in safeguarding topics and were aware of their responsibilities to report any possible abuse.

Arrangements were in place to ensure medicines were safely administered. Staff had been trained in medicines administration and managers audited the system and staff competence.

Staff were recruited robustly to ensure they were safe to work with vulnerable adults.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 August 2018

The service was effective.

Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had been trained in the MCA and DoLS and should recognise what a deprivation of liberty is or how they must protect people’s rights.

People were given a nutritious diet and said the food provided at the service was good.

Induction, training and supervision gave staff the knowledge and support they needed to satisfactorily care for the people who used the service.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 August 2018

The service was caring.

We observed staff had a kind and caring approach to people who used the service.

People were encouraged and supported to keep in touch with their family and friends.

We saw that people were offered choice in many aspects of their lives and encouraged to remain independent.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 August 2018

The service was responsive.

There was a suitable complaints procedure for people to voice their concerns and people told us they felt confident they could raise any issues.

People were able to join in activities suitable to their age, gender and ethnicity.

Plans of care were regularly reviewed and contained sufficient details for staff to deliver their care.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 August 2018

The service was well-led.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of care and service provision at this care home.

Policies, procedures and other relevant documents were reviewed regularly to help ensure staff had up to date information.

All the people and staff we spoke with told us they felt supported and could approach managers when they wished.