We carried out a review of the data available to us about Stone House 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 Stone House, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service:
People and their relatives told us they were supported by an exceptionally caring and considerate staff team who knew them well, treated them as individuals and with the upmost respect. A person who lived at the home said, “I can’t speak highly enough about the staff. They really are amazing, and they put themselves out for me.” A relative told us, “They [staff] should have a gold standard award. They are all so kind and caring and will do anything for [relative]. I wouldn’t want my [relative to be anywhere else. You couldn’t get better than this.” Staff went out of their way to respect people as individuals and provided exceptionally compassionate care to all. Staff had developed meaningful caring relationships with people and were committed to ensuring people lived fulfilling lives and were protected from social isolation.
People felt safe and could raise concerns. The staff team knew the action to take to safeguard people from the risk of harm and abuse. They supported people to take managed risks and enabled them to live the lifestyle of their choosing. Staff were recruited safely and deployed in sufficient numbers to meet people's needs. People received their medicines when they needed them from staff who were trained and competent to carry out the task.
People's health and nutritional needs were monitored and met. People saw health care professionals when required. People were provided with a nutritious and healthy diet, whilst still ensuring there were treats and snacks in-between meals.
Staff understood the importance of ensuring people’s rights were understood and protected. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The registered manager led by example. People, staff and relatives felt their views were important and that their opinions were listened to. Staff were valued by the provider and registered manager. Staff morale was good, and staff were encouraged to share ideas and suggestions for improvements. There was an emphasis of continuous learning and there were effective procedures in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.
Rating at last inspection: At our last inspection in September 2016 (report published 11 November 2016) the service was rated good.
Why we inspected: This was a scheduled inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to
visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Stone House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 40 older people some of whom were living with dementia. On the day of our inspection 36 people were living there.
The home had a registered manager who was present for the inspection. 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were protected from the risk of potential abuse because staff knew how to keep them safe. The risk of harm to people was reduced because staff’s practices reduced the risk of accidents. People were cared for by sufficient numbers of staff and the provider’s recruitment process ensured that all staff were suitable to work in the home. People were supported by staff to take their medicines as prescribed.
People were cared for by staff who were skilled and who received regular one to one [supervision] sessions. New staff were provided with an in depth induction to support them in their role. People’s human rights were protected because staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of liberty safeguards and these principles were put into practice.
People had access to a variety of meals and were supported by staff to eat and drink enough to promote their health. Staff helped people where needed to access relevant health care services.
Staff had a good understanding of people’s care and support needs and people were treated with kindness. People were involved in planning their care so they received a service that met their needs. People’s right to privacy and dignity was promoted by staff.
People were involved in the assessment of their care needs and were also supported by staff to engage in social activities. People were aware of how to complain and complaints were listened to and acted on.
Practices in place supported people and staff to be involved in the running of the home. The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. Information from quality checks was used to drive improvements.
We saw that staff generally responded promptly to any requests for assistance. Staff made sure that people were given choice and were encouraged to be as independent as possible. People considered the staff met their current needs and felt assured that if they became unwell that staff would respond.
People believed staff were well trained to do their job and one person said, "They are good at working with the district nurse that helps me". They thought that professional care was provided by staff.
We spoke with nine people who used the service and six staff.
People who used the service who spoke with us said that they were well looked after. One person told us that they were comfortable and everyone felt safe. They told us that the staff always asked them how they would like things to be done, always respected their privacy and treated them with respect. Staff told us that care records were updated with the people's involvement.
People who used the service told us that staff always came promptly when they needed help. They said staff talked to them about how they liked their care to be provided.
People said there was always enough staff on duty and they never felt rushed. They said that the staff were competent and always acted professionally.
One person said, 'Staff listen to any concerns I might have. I would make a complaint if I had one and would feel the manager would look into it'. Staff spoke of their awareness of how to keep people safe from harm.
We spoke with staff who had different roles in the home. They told us they enjoyed their work and were well supported. They said they were provided with training opportunities to meet the specific needs of the people who used the service and to keep them safe. One person said, 'I do enjoy my job, I like giving people freedom of choice'.
People who used the service spoke of being involved in how it was run. They said they could attend meetings and staff spoke to them about their care. People explained staff continued to help them access community events where possible. They considered this important as many residents had lived in the surrounding rural area.
One relative said the home was 'excellent and communication between the home and relatives is good' and another said 'we have absolutely no complaints about this care home.'
Most people told us they enjoyed their meals, however some people told us that the choice of soft diets was limited and they would like to see more variety.
One relative told us the home had encouraged them to bring personal possessions in of their loved one to personalise their room and to make it feel like home.
Staff told us that training at the home was very good and they are well supported by the management team. Most staff said there are always enough staff on duty to look after people living at the home.
The Shropshire local Involvement Network (LINk) visited the home on 3 December 2009. LINk is made up of individuals, community groups and voluntary organisations with an interest in improving health and social services. They told us that people who live at the home were very complimentary about the home and staff. People living at the home told LINk that they especially enjoyed the frequency of outside trips.
People who contributed to discussions with us told us that the staff are all "very good" they told us the "care provided is good and they look after us very well, our privacy and dignity is always respected by staff". People told us if they need to see a doctor or other health care professional this is arranged by the staff.
One relative said the home was 'excellent and communication between the home and relatives is good' and another said 'we have absolutely no complaints about this care home.'
Most people told us they enjoyed their meals, however some people told us that the choice of soft diets was limited and they would like to see more variety.
One relative told us the home had encouraged them to bring personal possessions in of their loved one to personalise their room and to make it feel like home.
Staff told us that training at the home was very good and they are well supported by the management team. Most staff said there are always enough staff on duty to look after people living at the home.
The Shropshire local Involvement Network (LINk) visited the home on 3 December 2009. LINk is made up of individuals, community groups and voluntary organisations with an interest in improving health and social services. They told us that people who live at the home were very complimentary about the home and staff. People living at the home told LINk that they especially enjoyed the frequency of outside trips.