Stoneyford Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good. This meant the management and leadership was consistent. Leaders and the culture they created supported the delivery of person-centred care.

Since our last assessment improvements had been implemented and embedded in the service relating to quality monitoring and governance of the service. Staff told us they had been supported by training and upskilling in record keeping and the registered manager had supported with practical training. Senior staff told us they had been supported and trained to complete audits which now identified gaps in record keeping allowing prompt action and resolutions to be taken.

At our last assessment, the provider was in breach of regulation in relation to the governance of the service. Enough improvement had been made that the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. There was a service improvement plan in place to track developments and ensure the required measures were taken to maintain and improve the service to safe standard. The management team all had responsibility for ensuring these actions were completed. Improvements had focused on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. People and staff told us there was no longer a fear culture at the home. Minutes from team meetings and staff feedback questionnaires showed this area was regularly discussed and reviewed and people and relatives were also encouraged to share their opinions with similar methods.

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. People and staff we spoke with consistently told us the culture of the home had changed and people were encouraged to speak up with concerns, suggestion or ideas. One person living at the home said, “Staff are always asking me if I’m ok or need anything. The [registered] manager does too, they check I’m happy.” We saw evidence of regular meetings which included people and staff. However, we observed the registered manager spending time with people individually to allow a safe space and time for them to give honest and open feedback.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. There was a complaint policy in place and people and staff told us they knew how to raise a complaint. People we spoke with told us they had needed to raise a concerns or complaint since our last assessment, but everyone said they were confident the registered manager would respond if they did.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. Staff told us they felt listen to and valued by the registered manager. One staff member said, “The support and training we receive is fantastic, the registered manager is always available but is good at giving support and feedback.” Another staff member said, “It’s a family here, we see the owners more often and they check in with us. The managers are always about too.”

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate. Improvements had been made since our last assessment, quality monitoring audits such as health and safety checks and record reviews were consistently completed and actions taken for any identified gaps or concerns. More staff had been upskilled to complete and action these audits to ensure consistency in the registered managers absence. The provider had also introduced new technology in the home to help with monitoring. For example, where appropriate, rooms had new fall detection monitors in place. This technology used audio sounds to pre-empt falls prior to them happening. While more time was need for this technology to be fully embedded, there had been no falls recorded in home since its introduction which had improved people’s safety and outcomes.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. Other professionals who worked with the home such as the local authority and district nurses told us there had been consistent improvements in the home and standards of care being provided.

The registered managerfocused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. The registered manager and wider management team had worked openly and consistently to improve care, learning and outcomes within the home for people since our last assessment. The registered manager completed lesson learned documents and regularly shared best practice examples with staff to improve their knowledge and skill set. When an incident occurred it was seen as an opportunity for all staff to learn and staff said this was done in a supportive and productive manner which fostered a positive culture where staff were motivated to develop and had a safe environment to do so.