You are here

Archived: Stuart House Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 April 2016

This inspection took place on 25 February 2016 and was unannounced.

The provider of is registered to provide accommodation for personal care for a maximum of 6 people. There were 6 people living at the home on the day of our visit. At the time of our inspection 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.

People told us that staff supported them to keep safe and would talk to staff about concerns about their safety. Staff knew how people needed protecting from the risk of harm or abuse and the steps they would take to protect and report any concerns. People’s risks relating to their safe care and treatment had been assessed and all staff knew what they needed to do to help minimise those risks.

People had staff available at the times they wanted for assistance and support. We saw that staff responded to people as needed and told us they had time to support people as required. People had been asked about the level of help they needed with their medicines and staff provided people with support and recorded when they had received them.

Staff were confident about how to care for people and that their training and support provided them with the skills needed. All staff told us they felt supported by the management team to carry out their roles effectively. Staff listened and respected people’s decisions about their care and treatment. Staff showed they listened and responded to people’s choice.

People’s nutritional needs were met and chose the meals they wanted. People saw other health professionals when needed to support and maintain their health and wellbeing.

People told us they liked living at the home and that staff were friendly and kind. People were cared for as individuals with their preferences and choices supported. Staff treated people with dignity and respect when supporting them and encouraged people to be as independent as possible.

The registered manager was available, approachable and known by people. Staff also felt confident to raise any concerns of behalf of people.

The management team had kept their knowledge current and they led by example. The management team were approachable and visible within the home and people knew them well. The provider ensured regular checks were completed to monitor the quality of the care that people received and looked at where improvements may be needed.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 April 2016

The service was safe.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to meet their care and welfare needs in a timely way. People felt safe and looked after by staff. People�s risk had been considered and had received their medicines when needed.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 April 2016

The service was effective.

People�s consent had been obtained and recorded. People�s dietary needs had been assessed and they had a choice about what they ate. Staff had received training and support to understand people. Input from other health professionals had been used when required to meet people�s health needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 April 2016

The service was caring.

People received care that met their needs. When staff provided care they met people�s needs whilst being respectful of their privacy and dignity and took account of people�s individual preferences.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 April 2016

The service was responsive.

People had been supported to make everyday choices and were engaged in their personal interest and hobbies.

People were supported by staff or relatives to raise any comments or concerns with staff.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 April 2016

The service was well-led.

People and staff were complimentary about the overall service and had their views listened to.

The provider had monitored the quality of care provided. Procedures in place to identified areas for improvement or review.