Stansfield Hall Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
 

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The staff ensured people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care records contained enough personalisation to guide staff about people’s care needs. In some cases, preferences were documented but this was not consistent across all the records that we reviewed.

The people living in the home were happy and cared for, one person told us, “There is keep fit which I enjoy. They have a lot of birthday and special occasion parties as well. There is also the hairdresser comes regularly, and the chiropodist looks after my feet."
We observed a member of staff bringing 2 types of drink over to a person who was struggling to communicate so they could point to their choice of drink.

The staff used their knowledge of the people they supported to provide person centred care. A staff member told us, “One of our residents used to be a professional painter. I provided canvases, paints and craft materials which then allows them to express themselves in a calm and familiar manner”.
 

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff understood the importance of working closely with a range of healthcare professionals to ensure care was joined up. This included access to doctors, speech and language therapists, opticians and physiotherapists.

Where a change was observed in a person’s health, the advice of a healthcare professional was sought where appropriate and this was documented in care notes and the referral included in the care records.

The district nurses contacted the home weekly and would visit if needed. They told us they had a good relationship with the staff, and the relatives and requests were responded to in a timely manner.
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

There was signage within the home including signs for the bathroom and dining room to help people safely navigate their way around.

The food for each day was written on the board and presented in laminated menus. A member of staff also chatted to anyone who may struggle to read the information and supported them in making a choice.
 

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Staff told us they would feel comfortable to raise any concerns and relatives said communication was good and the manager was visible and helpful.

However, there were no regular resident, relative or staff meetings, which meant opportunities for people to provide feedback was limited. One staff member told us that there was a suggestion box that they could use if they wanted to raise concerns confidentially.

Management told us that they had plans to distribute surveys to relatives to gain feedback
 

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service was accessible with adaptions in place such as handrails and specialised equipment including stand aids, hoists and raised toilet seats. Signage was used throughout the home; however, the environment was not dementia friendly. A bedroom for someone who had been diagnosed with dementia had patterned curtains, walls and floor and the bedroom doors did not contain anything distinctive to help people to identify their rooms.

While we were visiting the home there was an armchair exercise class being held in the lounge. The majority of people took part, however one lady was visibly unhappy and said she did not like the noise and the activity. She sat in the conservatory by herself and was not supported to engage in a different activity.
 

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

No one reported any concerns about discrimination and there appeared to be a relatively diverse staff team. Our observations showed that staff understood the importance of meetings people’s preferences and promoting choice.
 

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.
We did not see any evidence that people were supported to plan for the end of their life. There was one person receiving end of life care when we visited the home. The staff had not received any training in this area and we could not be assured that staff had the relevant knowledge and confidence to be able to support people appropriately. The home had not enlisted the support of a hospice or other specialised care and the person’s end of life care plan had not been completed. We fed this back to the manager who said they understood where improvement was needed.