Stansfield Hall Care Home

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

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider 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 as good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.
 

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

There was a culture of kindness in the home. We observed staff treating people with consideration and gentleness and spending time with people outside of tasks. Staff used gentle touch to get people’s attention and spoke kindly to people when supporting them with tasks such as eating.

Staff training on dignity and respect was not up to date; however, interactions were respectful both with the people living in the home, relatives and visiting healthcare professionals
 

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics

While we were visiting the home we observed staff engaging with people and talking to them about their interests and things that had happened in their past lives. . One person had woken up when breakfast had finished and they were offered appropriate food and drink and treated kindly.

Care plans did not consistently contain details about people’s preferences. Where they had been recorded, there was no evidence of these being considered in the planning of activities organised by the activities staff. One family member performed a religious tradition monthly at the home for their relative to enable them to continue with what was important to them. Other people in the home were welcome to join in.
 

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff promoted people’s independence and had a good understanding of how to support people in a way that enabled them to do as much as possible for themselves.

We observed a staff member taking time to ask each person in the dining room a choice of what they would like for lunch and people were supported to move between rooms when they chose too.

One member of staff explained how they supported a person to remain mobile by gently encouraging them to walk and only using a wheelchair when necessary.

Care plans contained limited information about people’s goals and instead, staff relied more on their familiarity with the people they supported. The involvement of families also helped to ensure people were offered choices in line with their preferences.
 

Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff responded promptly to people’s requests for assistance. Staff were alert to people’s needs and took appropriate action. While we were at the home a staff member called an ambulance for assistance as a district nurse had identified that a person needed assistance. This staff member then stayed on shift to ensure the paramedics arrived and were directed to the person.

We noted that there was a slight delay in some people receiving support during mealtimes as these were busy times for the staff.
 

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

The staff mainly spoke positively about the management saying they were approachable and visible in the home.

One staff member told us that due to the shift patterns, there were times when there were only two members of staff in the home which they did not feel was sufficient to accommodate the needs of the people in the home. In addition, a senior member of staff said they never had time for an adequate break due to the demands in the home and a regular break was not scheduled into the rota. The lack of a designated staff room or area for staff to take their breaks meant staff were always present within the home, rather than being provided with a relaxed environment.

An absence of regular meetings meant there was limited opportunities for staff to speak to the management and raise concerns.