Stoneyford 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 requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Improvements had been made to the safe and responsive care people received and care records now accurately reflected support people received from staff. Improvements had been made to the recording of advice and guidance from professionals who worked with the service, such as GPs and district nurses, which meant people received responsive care when their condition deteriorated or experienced periods of illness.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure 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 plans accurately reflected people needs and expressed how they wished their care to be delivered. Staff understood people and their needs but also had time to socialise with people to get to know them on a personal level and build trusting relationships. For example, one staff member said, “It’s the little things sometimes, I can see when someone is having an off day. I know their favourite drink and their favourite mug, so I get them a drink and sit with them. It makes them smile when I do this and they haven’t asked.”

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. Professionals who worked with the service, like district nurses told us the staff team were knowledgeable and responsive to people’s care needs which kept them safe and provided good outcomes. We saw evidence of recommendations made by professionals recorded in peoples care plan and records showed staff followed this guidance. For example, one person was being supported with their mobility needs as their condition had deteriorated. Care plans contained clear guidance for staff of the different types of equipment needed and when this should be used. The care plan supported a number of different methods to allow the person choice, such as differing equipment depending on whether the person chose a bath or a shower.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Management at staff were knowledgeable about accessible information standards and supported people in line with their choice. Documents could be produced in large print or alternate languages if needed.

The provider was exceptional at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff always involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People and staff told us they were involved in care planning. One staff member said, “The registered manager updates the care plan, but we are asked to contribute and record our concerns or ideas to improve people’s care.” Staff told us communication had improved and they received regular updates and opportunities to speak to the registered manager. This included daily meeting, monthly team meetings and regular wellbeing checks.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We saw evidence of a weekly GP round; however we saw evidence of other medical professionals being contacted outside of this when needs arose. Staff documented any health concerns and continually check for any deterioration. For example, one person was at increased risk of developing breast cancer. The care plan detailed the annual checks the person was required to attend with staffs’ assistance but also additional checks staff could support the person with in-between. This meant the person would have any concerns identified early and reduce the risk to their health.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Everyone we spoke with told us the culture of the home had change and become more open and inclusive. Staff told us they were now supported with reasonable adjustment to enable them to return to work quickly and safely following periods of sickness. We saw evidence of appropriate risk assessments to support people and staff with personalised needs, including appropriate support for pregnancy and disabilities.

People were 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. While no one was receiving end of life care at the time of the inspection, staff had received training to support knowledge and care delivery should this need arise. Care plans gave detailed guidance for staff about people’s wishes or who they wished to be contacted to make these decisions at the appropriate time. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s wishes and were aware of appropriate tools such as Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms and supported people to complete these where appropriate. The ReSPECT process creates a personalised recommendation for clinical care in emergency situations. The form is clearly documented and regularly reviewed with professional involvement including GPs.