Stansfield Hall Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.
 

This service scored 58 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

An assessment of people’s needs took place before they were offered a place at the home.
Some care plans included an all about me section which had been completed with the assistance of a relative, but this was not consistent across the care plans we viewed. Management told us that they offered a review process which families were invited to join.

Care plans contained monthly reviews, however these appeared to have been completed by the manager only. District nurses completed an annual assessment of each person and all new admissions.
 

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Staff knew people well and we saw them supporting people in ways which reflected their assessed needs. Tools such as the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) were used to help identify health concerns. However, documentation was not always accurate or completed as necessary. For example, a fluid chart for a person who was required to have their fluid intake monitored contained conflicting information about how much they should be receiving and there was no information to explain how the amount had been calculated.

Training had not been completed to ensure that staff understood how to use tools that related to people’s specific care needs.
 

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

The staff team worked well together and were familiar with people’s needs. However, people did not have specific documents which detailed their health, support and communication which are used when people are admitted to hospital. There were no regular meetings held to ensure that all staff were informed about changes to people’s health and well-being.

Appropriate referrals were made where further guidance and support was needed to help meet people’s care needs. Healthcare professionals were positive about working with the home and staff saying, “Their queries are always relevant and overall, we think they do a good job”.
 

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were referred to health professionals when needed, such as the Speech and Language Therapy Service (SALT) for swallowing problems and optician and dental appointments were made when needed. Staff took people out for visits at a local beauty spot and activity staff held armchair exercise classes weekly.

There was a choice of food and drinks. People spoke very positively about the food, one person said, "The food, oh my word! its excellent! There is always a choice, and I get plenty of drinks through the day.”
 

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and
consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff were very familiar with the people they supported, and appropriate action was taken when any changes to their health needs were identified. However, the documents used to monitor people’s health were not always consistently or accurately completed and the lack of systems in place to oversee the care provided meant we could not be assured that outcomes were always positive.
 

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff were aware of seeking people’s consent. We observed staff asking for consent and people’s care records contained consent forms such as consent to care and treatment. Staff took care to observe nonverbal cues and behaviours that might indicate a person’s feelings and wishes. Where people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves, decisions had been made in their best interests in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA).