We carried out a review of the data available to us about OSJCT Stirlings 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 OSJCT Stirlings, you can give feedback on this service.
Stirlings is residential care home that was providing personal without nursing to 35 people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 40 people.
People’s experience of using this service:
People had excellent opportunities and access to a variety of activities to prevent social isolation. Social activities met people’s individual needs and followed best practice guidance so people could live as full a life as possible. Activities were overseen by a committed, passionate and experienced full-time coordinator who has recently won a coordinator of the year award. Additional support was provided by a number of trained, passionate volunteers. The service has gone the extra mile to find out what people have done in the past, evaluated whether it could accommodate activities, and made that happen. The service had gone the extra mile to encourage and support people to develop and maintain relationships with people that matter to them. The service took a key role in the local community and was actively involved in building further links with the local community. Contact with other community resources and support networks was encouraged and sustained. Several local schools had links with the home, with pupils and people visiting each other’s establishments. People told us they enjoyed and benefitted from these links.
People living at Stirlings received safe care from skilled and knowledgeable staff. People told us they felt safe receiving care from the service. Staff understood their responsibilities to identify and report any concerns. The provider had safe recruitment and selection processes in place.
Risks to people's safety and well-being were managed through a risk management process. There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs. The home used the same agency staff to ensure consistence of care. Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were supported to maintain good health and to meet their nutritional needs.
People told us staff were caring. Staff consistence enabled people to receive good care from staff who knew them well.
Stirlings was well-led by a manager who was making positive changes. The service had a clear management and staffing structure in place. Staff worked well as a team and had a sense of pride working at the service. The provider had quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.
Rating at last inspection:
At our last inspection we rated the service good. Our last report was published on 12 October 2016.
Why we inspected:
This inspection was part of our scheduled plan of visiting services to check the safety and quality of care people received.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor the service to ensure that people receive safe, compassionate, high quality care. Further inspections will be planned for future dates.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Stirlings residential home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 40 older people some of whom were living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 38 people living at the service.
There was a registered manager in post. 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 registered manager worked closely with the area manager.
People who were supported by the service felt safe. The staff had a clear understanding on how to safeguard people and protect their health and well-being. People received their medicine as prescribed. There were systems in place to manage safe administration and storage of medicines.
The service had enough suitably qualified and experienced staff to meet people's needs. People told us they were attended to without unnecessary delay. The service had robust recruitment procedures and conducted background checks to ensure staff were suitable for their role. People were actively involved in the running of the service, including the recruitment of staff. They felt like part of the service.
People had a range of individualised risk assessments in place to keep them safe and to help them maintain their independence. Where risks to people had been identified risk assessments were in place and action had been taken to reduce the risks. Staff were aware of people’s needs and followed guidance to keep them safe.
Staff received adequate training and support to carry out their roles effectively. People felt supported by competent staff that benefitted from regular supervision (one to one meetings with their line manager) and team meetings to help them meet the needs of the people they cared for.
The registered manager and staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and applied its principles in their work. Where people were thought to lack capacity to make certain decisions, assessments had been completed in line with the principles of MCA. The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS); these provide legal safeguards for people who may be deprived of their liberty for their own safety.
People’s nutritional needs were met and people benefited from a good dining experience. People were given choices and received their meals in a timely manner. Staff treated people with kindness, compassion and respect and promoted people’s independence and right to privacy. People received high quality care that was personalised to meet their needs.
People were supported to maintain their health and were referred for specialist advice as required. Where people had received end of life care, staff had taken actions to ensure people would have as dignified and comfortable death as possible. End of life care was provided in a compassionate way.
Staff knew the people they cared for and what was important to them. Staff appreciated people’s unique life histories and understood how these could influence the way people wanted to be cared for. People were actively involved with the local community. People were encouraged and supported to engage with services and events outside of the home. Staff supported and encouraged people to engage with a variety of activities and entertainments available within the home. Activities were structured to people's interests and people chose what activities they wanted to do. The environment was designed to enable people to move freely around the home.
Feedback was sought from people and their relatives and used to improve the care. People knew how to make a complaint and complaints were managed in accordance with the provider’s complaints policy.
Leadership within the service was open and transparent at all levels. The provider had quality assurance systems in place. The provider had systems to enable people to provide feedback on the care they received.
The registered manager informed us of all notifiable incidents. The registered manager had a clear plan to develop and further improve the home. Staff spoke positively about the management support and leadership they received from the registered manager.
We observed that people were supported to make decisions about their tea time meal. Care workers approached people in a respectful manner, asking questions and offering choices. To assist people with the choice of meal, a pictorial menu was displayed on each dining room table.
Care records contained information about the person's life history and a record of personal preferences about the person's choices, likes and dislikes and routines. Each person had a detailed, person-centred support plan. These had been discussed with the person, signed and dated.
People that we spoke with said they felt safe in the home. One person told us "I feel safe because there are always carers around. I could speak to any of them". Another person told us "my family visit often and I would tell them if I didn't feel safe". People that we spoke with said there were always enough care workers and support staff on duty to meet their care needs.
Care workers confirmed they had received training in person-centred care, care planning and report writing. Accident records, complaints and comments slips were in place as well as guidance for completion. Records are audited monthly during senior management visits to the home.
We saw evidence of regular care worker meetings. These had been well attended. One care worker told us "the meetings are planned in advance and we are encouraged to add items to the agenda.
Relatives of people who lived in the home told us that they ''could not praise it enough'' their family members received excellent care and they would highly recommend it. A relative said ''I have no worries about their care as I trust the staff implicitly''.