Turning Point - Stanfield House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good: This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Staff treated clients with compassion and kindness. They respected clients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of clients and supported them to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved clients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Throughout our inspection, we observed staff interacting with clients in a respectful, dignified, and responsive manner. Staff members had established strong rapports with clients, and due to this familiarity, were able to quickly respond to client’s needs. Staff spoke to clients with dignity and kindness, and provided help, emotional support, and advice when it was needed.

Clients told us that staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. A client told us, “Every one of the staff has been great.” A second client said, “The staff give you the enthusiasm and the confidence. You can come here not making decisions and they build you up with your confidence, so you are making decisions.” A former client told us, “I do feel that people receive safe care and treatment, without a doubt. There's no ‘I'm better than you’ or anything like that … Hearing other people's stories from other rehabs I feel very lucky that I chose to come here.”

Clients shared that staff supported them to make their own decisions and that these were typically respected. A former client shared “The first 2 weeks I was here, I had really awful anxiety. [Staff member] was lovely and told me I didn't need to force myself into situations that were uncomfortable.”

Staff understood the individual needs, circumstances, and histories of the clients they cared for, and told us how they had supported clients with their religious, cultural, gender, and sexuality needs in the past. Staff recognised the sensitive nature of the care they provided and ensured they maintained the confidentiality of clients, including following data processing legislation.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service identified reasonable adjustments as part of the pre-admission assessment. During our inspection, we saw examples where staff had supported clients to access bedrooms and facilities with the use of mobility aids. Staff had supported another client with their communication and cognitive needs, by providing information in writing following verbal discussions.

Clients collectively agreed meal plans on a weekly rotation, considering different dietary requirements and preferences. Staff supported clients with planning, ensuring items purchased met, and were prepared in line with, the needs of all clients using the service.

Staff considered any religious and spiritual needs of clients at the pre-admission assessment and staff assisted clients to observe their beliefs. For example, staff had supported clients to attend local church groups and observe the sabbath.

The service also provided support to family members and carers where needed. Family members could access a free, confidential, online programme that helped to understand their loved ones care and treatment. The programme provided exercises to help family members respond to the client’s needs, supported them to increase resilience, and signposted them to support

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff members promoted client’s independence, ensuring they were involved in their care and supported clients to make informed decisions. They provided documents and leaflets in a variety of formats to help clients make choices.

Staff regularly spoke to clients about their care. Staff listened to client’s wishes or concerns, recording and acting upon them appropriately.

Clients told us they felt listened to and involved in their care, able to make choices without pressure. A previous client told us, “I felt involved in my care, making decisions, I made the decision to relocate and they supported me with that.” A client said, “One day I told a staff member I couldn't do group so we went for a walk instead.”

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff had assessed client risks and clearly recorded these within the individual client care plans, including any identified mitigations to prevent harm. Staff members spoke with confidence about these risks and could clearly articulate the steps in place to reduce them. Staff reviewed the plans regularly and updated them to reflect any changes to individual or environmental circumstances.

We observed staff responding to a client who was distressed about an upcoming decision regarding housing. Staff acknowledging the client’s concerns using validating language and offered a one to one. The staff member spent time with the client, exploring their feelings and agreeing steps to take to manage these worries while awaiting an outcome.

We also observed a staff member respond to a client who became visibly upset following a group activity. The staff member accompanied the client to a quiet space and asked open questions to identify the cause of the client’s distress. They provided assurances to the client and later were seen to follow up the discussion to ensure the client’s concerns had been addressed.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt respected, supported, and valued in their work, praising the management team for the assistance they provided. Staff described working well as a team and shared their pride in working for the service. Staff felt that managers provided a safe space to talk and supported staff to be their authentic selves in the workplace.

When needed, staff had access to a range of support for their own physical and emotional health needs, with immediate assistance provided by management in one to ones, team meetings, and other discussions. Additional information and resources, such as an employee assistance programme, were available to staff.

The service had staff recognition awards which clients or peers could nominate individual staff for. During our inspection, we saw many ‘thank you’ cards sent by clients and their carers for the support offered.