Archived: Sue Ryder - Stagenhoe Park

Sue Ryder - Stagenhoe Park is a specialist neurological care centre providing personal and nursing care for 42 people with a range of neurological conditions such as Huntington’s Disease, Parkinson’s and Multiple Sclerosis. The service can support up to 50 people.

The Grade II listed building offers accommodation on two floors. The bedrooms are generous in size and have nice views of the surrounding gardens.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were supported by staff who received appropriate training and were skilled to meet people’s complex needs. Staff knew their responsibility about safeguarding people from possible abuse. They knew to observe, record and report their concerns internally and externally to safeguarding authorities.

People’s needs were met by a team of nursing, physiotherapists and care staff. There was a multidisciplinary team approach to assess and meet people’s needs as well as identify risks and put measures in place to mitigate them. Equipment needed to support people’s health needs and independence was in place and regularly checked to ensure these were safe to use.

Staff received training and felt supported to carry out their roles. People’s needs were met by staff in a timely way, however when unplanned staff absences occurred they felt under pressure to ensure people received the care they needed. People’s medicines were managed safely by trained staff who had their competency assessed. Lessons were learnt when things went wrong, and actions were taken to prevent re-occurrence.

Staff understood the importance for people to have a good nutrition and hydration. There were established systems and processes in place to refer people to GP, dietician and speech and therapy support if they needed it.

People and relatives told us how caring and kind staff were towards them. People felt empowered to take decisions and discuss their needs with staff. Relatives told us they always felt welcome and involved in their loved one’s care.

Staff gathered information from people and relatives about people’s likes, dislikes and preferences to ensure they could provide personalised care even when people were no longer able to communicate their choices.

Staff used communication aids to enable people for as long as possible to be involved in their care and be independent. Activities were provided to people. These were adapted to the needs and abilities of the people living in the home.

People received end of life care from staff who ensured that they were comfortable. Staff were developing the care plans for people’s needs nearing the end of their life to ensure personalised and compassionate care was given to people right until the end.

The provider enabled staff to participate in testing new assistive technology to support people to be more independent and improve their quality of life. Plans were in place to collect data from these trials to feed into a nationwide database to develop best practice for people with neurological conditions.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (report published on 16 June 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

The service had a registered manager. 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 were safe and they were protected against the possible risk of harm or abuse by staff who were knowledgeable about safeguarding processes.

Risks to people had been assessed and managed appropriately. There were sufficient numbers of trained, experienced and skilled staff to meet people`s needs safely. Medicines were administered safely; however stock counts and carried forward medicines were not always accurately done. This was addressed by the management during the inspection process.

People received care and support from staff who were motivated, supported, trained and competent in their roles. People’s nutritional and health care needs were met. They had access to and received support from other health care professionals.

People who lived at the home were positive about the care and support they received from staff. They were involved in planning their care and support and if they were not able to do so their rightful representatives or independent advocates ensured the care was in their best interest.

People were treated with respect and their privacy and dignity was promoted.

People’s health care needs were assessed, reviewed and delivered in a way that promoted their wellbeing and improved their quality of life. People were supported to pursue their hobbies and interests by a team of activity workers.

There were regular opportunities provided to people, relatives and staff to give feedback about the service. Regular surveys were conducted.

Relatives were extremely appreciative of the positive impact the personalised care and support delivered by staff had on their loved ones.

The registered manger and the head of care carried out a number of audits, medicines, infection control, falls and environmental audits. We found that were issues were identified an action plan was developed and only when these were completed were signed off.

The accommodation was appropriately designed and adapted to meet the needs of the people living there and risks within the home had been assessed. The home was clean and was personalised to the people who lived there.

We observed that before people received any care or treatment they had been asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

We saw that support plans and risk assessments were informative and up to date. Staff were aware of their contents, which supported them to deliver appropriate and safe care. There were plenty of suitable activities for people to choose from. The provider had systems in place that ensured the safe receipt, storage, administration and recording of medicines. Staff recruitment and induction systems were robust.