Stoneyford Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

Everyone we spoke with told us they felt safe living at the home and staff presence in communal areas and response time to requests for help had improved. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and knew who to keep people safe and improvements had made been to record and monitoring which ensured people remained safe. People were supported in a person-centred way when having their medicines administered and cleanliness was to a high standard throughout the home. At times staff did not always use personal protective equipment (PPE) in line with best practice, the registered manager acted on this feedback immediately to ensure people’s safety.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Since our last assessment, the registered manager had developed a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Records now accurately reflected the care people received and gaps were identified early to ensure people received the care required. For example, where incidents had occurred staff consistently referred them to the registered manager for review and any changes or lessons learned were shared with staff in meeting or through supervisions.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. Since our last assessment, the registered manager had ensured people received support in relation to pressure care safely. Everyone living at the home had had their risk of pressure damage assessed and where needed appropriate mitigation was provided; including input from medical professionals where needed. For example, where people had been deemed at high risk, their care plan now detailed how and when people should be repositioned to reduce the risk of injury. Records reviewed showed staff supported people with repositioning consistently and safely.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. Everyone we spoke with told us they felt safe living at Stoneyford Care Home. One person said, “Things have really improved, staff are always in the lounge now, so I feel safe.” All the staff we spoke with were able to describe safeguarding and gave examples of risks people faced in relation to keeping them safe. Staff knew how to report and escalate their concerns and told us they were confident the registered manager would respond. The management team kept a log of all incidents and concerns and where appropriate, made referrals and notification in line with their legal requirements to the CQC and the local authority.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Since our last assessment the registered manager had ensured improvements had been made in how staff observed, identified and recorded concerns and actions in relation to risks people faced. For example, a person we reviewed had an active pressure sore which required medical treatment. Staff consistently followed medical guidance. The wound was reviewed daily to check for improvements or deterioration. Staff used tools to help them assess the wounds progress and to check for potential infection such and photos and body maps. This had resulted in a positive outcome for the person as the wound had healed in a short period.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Since our last assessment, the provider had increased staffing levels to ensure people were supported and supervised in communal areas and staff were still able to respond to call bells in a timely manner. Everyone we spoke with told us they felt the environment was safe now. One person said, “Staff are nearly always around and available now, the registered manager will help too, if needed. The only time I might have to wait is at mealtime but it’s only a couple of minutes now nothing more.” The registered manager continued to perform daily walk arounds which successfully identified area that required maintenance. At the time of assessment, the provider’s maintenance team were at the home completing routine repairs in line with an action plan. This meant the home environment was continuously monitored and maintained which ensured people remained safe.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Communal areas were now consistently supervised to ensure people had access to support when needed, which demonstrated appropriate staffing levels. The dining room now had access to a call bell should people need staff in an emergency and everyone we spoke to was aware of the call bell and how to use it. Staff were recruited safely, and now received ongoing training and support to ensure the care they delivered was to a high standard. Staff told us the registered manager and deputy were supportive with this, one staff member said, “They [registered manager and deputy manager] are about in the home with us every day and will give us practical support and training on the spot if needed, it is so good.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly and the cleanliness of the home was to a high standard. However, staff did not always use and dispose of personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately. For example, during the lunch time meal we observed staff supporting people with their nutritional needs. Staff failed to change their PPE between each person they supported. This meant people were at increased from the spread of infection. The registered manager acted on the feedback immediately and undertook a group supervision to retrain staff and provide practical guidance.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. Since our last assessment, the registered manager had reviewed the competency check undertaken for staff and the methods used to record these checks. Records now contained examples of good practice and areas for development. The deputy manager had also been upskilled to undertake competency checks and complete quality monitoring audits. This meant the management team had a thorough overview of standards in the home and were able to monitor and identify issues or gaps in records or competency quickly which kept people safe from the risk of harm. People continued to receive their medicines safely and where needed timed medicines were safely and effectively administered in line with people’s health conditions.