Stambridge Meadows 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.

This is the first assessment for this service under a new provider. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 63 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Pre-admission assessments involved people and their relatives. With people’s consent, their medical needs were reviewed to ensure the service was able to fully understand the support people required. This ensured the service had a comprehensive understanding of each person’s needs before they moved in.

Assessments reflected people’s communication needs and clearly outlined their preferred methods of communication. We reviewed assessments that detailed people’s health needs, including choking risk assessments, which described required food texture modifications and strategies to support people to eat safely.

We received mixed feedback regarding relatives’ involvement in care planning. Some were aware of their loved one’s care plans, while others were unsure if they had seen this documentation. The registered manager had already highlighted this as an ongoing area for improvement before us receiving feedback and confirmed work had already begun to increase the involvement of people and their relatives in the care planning process. The registered manager explained there had been very limited evidence of people’s involvement in care planning when they had started at the service. We saw evidence people and their relatives had been invited and encouraged to take part in discussions to gather information and to contribute to care plan reviews.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. We observed mealtimes and saw people were offered a choice of meals and drinks. The atmosphere was calm, and people appeared relaxed and engaged in conversation during their meals. Staff were present and available to provide support where needed.

Overall, feedback about meals was positive, although some mixed experiences were noted. People were generally satisfied with the quality, choice, and availability of food. One person said, “The foods not bad, certainly enough of it, for lunch you have a choice of two meals, they are good basic food,” while another commented, “It’s edible, not like mum made, but it never is. We have a choice of two meals each day.” Some mixed feedback related to variation in meal quality, with comments such as, “Some days it’s better than others.” However, people felt requests would generally be accommodated. There were positive examples of staff responding to individual preferences, such as providing favourite foods.

Relatives frequently described people as enjoying their meals and having good appetites. For example, one shared, “He’s got an amazing appetite and enjoys the food,” while another confirmed, “She is well nourished and hydrated and has not lost any weight.” Food and drinks were readily available, and people had access to a drink’s station.

Tools to assess risks, such as malnutrition and skin integrity, were in place, however, the actions linked to these assessments were not always completed or clearly recorded. We viewed a care plan that stated that Mid‑Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) measurements should be completed to help estimate the person’s BMI. Records showed this had only been completed once, and there was no clear guidance or schedule to show staff how often this should be done. A MUAC is a screening tool used to assess adult nutritional status and muscle mass by measuring the circumference of the upper arm. It is commonly used when a person’s height or weight cannot be accurately measured. The service has since updated the care plan to ensure the guidance is clear and appropriate to the person’s needs.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. Staff had access to the information they needed to understand people’s needs and deliver their care and support through a digital care planning system, which they could access via mobile devices. Staff told us they were kept up to date when people’s needs changed through handovers and team meetings. Care records showed the service worked appropriately with a range of external healthcare professionals. One external healthcare professional told us, “We do work together quite well; they will email if they have any concerns.”

We identified that hydration risks were not always effectively managed. Where people had identified fluid targets, records showed these were not consistently met, increasing the risk to people. However, people’s records did show they were supported to access a wide range of health and social care professionals, including GPs, district nurses and the speech and language service. The service made referrals to appropriate health services when people’s needs changed.

We were not assured that the provider consistently monitored outcomes effectively. This was due to gaps in documentation and incomplete records, which meant it was not always clear whether planned interventions had been carried out. These gaps also limited assurance that changes in people’s needs were being identified promptly.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff told us they had received training to help them understand the mental capacity framework and were able to describe principles of the mental capacity act. Staff said they could look in peoples care plans for guidance on their capacity and had access to a policy as well as support from the management team.

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty (DOLS). Where people lacked capacity, mental capacity assessments had been completed, and decisions were made in their best interests with input from professionals and family members. Assessments and decisions around consent were appropriately recorded.