You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 October 2019

About the service

Stanhope Lodge is a residential care home providing personal care to people with a learning disability and/or challenging behaviour and other complex needs. The service accommodates people across nine buildings, each of which has separate adapted facilities. People have access to gardens surrounding the service.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

The service was registered for the support of up to 28 people. 18 people were using the service. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However. the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The Secretary of State has asked the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to conduct a thematic review and to make recommendations about the use of restrictive interventions in settings that provide care for people with, or who might have, mental health problems, learning disabilities and/or autism. Thematic reviews look in-depth at specific issues concerning quality of care across the health and social care sectors. They expand our understanding of both good and poor practice and of the potential drivers of improvement.

As part of the thematic review, we carried out a survey with the provider at this inspection. This considered whether the service used any restrictive intervention practices (restraint, seclusion and segregation) when supporting people. The service used some restrictive intervention practices as a last resort, in a person-centred way, in line with positive behaviour support principles. Where interventions were used the registered manager agreed to record where lessons could be learnt to reduce the likelihood an incident would occur again.

The service supported people to learn new skills and maintain their independence. People planned and took part in activities that met their needs and preferences and they were supported to follow their interests.

There was a visible person-centred culture at the service. Staff had a clear understanding of people's needs and had developed positive relationships with them and their family members. Staff were very supportive and sensitive when supporting people to follow their diverse wishes and preferences.

One person described themselves as a “very happy man.” A relative fedback, ‘The staff that support [person] are so dedicated to him nothing is too much trouble, they are always trying to improve and introduce new ideas in to his accommodation and daily routine, so his quality of life is more fulfilled and interesting.’

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensured people who used the service can live as full a life as possible. This had resulted in exceptional achievements and outcomes that included control, choice and independence for people. People planned for activities that met their needs and preferences and they were supported to follow their interests.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by p

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 October 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 October 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 October 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 October 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 October 2019

The service was well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.