Stonewood Complex Care

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

Staff delivered care that reflected people’s individual needs and daily routines. Managers and staff assessed people’s needs holistically, which enabled staff to understand the person as a whole. Assessments captured people’s preferences, wishes and any strategies required to support engagement and positive outcomes.

People spoke positively about the consistency and quality of care they received. One person told us, “I feel safe and they (carers) have to be safe. They have got to know me really well, they know how my support should look and how its fits in with me. Everything is done when required, I have feeds that they do that for me, all correctly and on time. The staff are very well trained and because I have the same girls (carers) they know when things should be done and how they do them. People from office come and do checks and reviews, to make sure all is ok, and if I have any problems… I have no problems at all with the carers or the service… I feel pretty lucky.”

People and families told us they were familiar with their care plans. They said they had frequent contact with nurses, managers and office staff.

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.

Carers worked closely with families, registered nurses, office staff and external professionals. We saw evidence of this collaborative working within care records.

The provider used an electronic care recording system that supported timely and effective information sharing. Staff and healthcare professionals shared relevant and purposeful information regularly, which ensured updates and changes to care were communicated promptly. As a result, care plans remained accurate and staff delivered care safely and consistently. This approach supported continuity of care and provided people with a seamless service.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People and their families had access to the provider’s electronic care recording system where they wished to use this. This allowed them to view, in real time, the care and support being provided. The service shared staff rotas with people in a range of formats to meet their individual preferences.

At the time of the assessment, no one required care plan information in an alternative format or language. However, managers assured us they could provide this if required. The service had previously supported people for whom English was not their first language and had offered translation services, which people had chosen not to use.

The provider demonstrated a commitment to continual improvement. Managers actively explored new ways to share information and remained open to adopting innovative approaches. They considered staff needs and had introduced video content within staff newsletters to enhance engagement and information sharing.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and relatives told us they found it easy to communicate with staff, including managers and registered nurses. They said communication methods were effective and that they consistently received timely responses. People understood how to raise concerns and felt confident managers would take prompt action to address and resolve any issues.

The service encouraged people to share feedback through regular contact with staff, client surveys and care reviews. We saw an example where managers acted on feedback raised during a review. The service recorded the concern appropriately, escalated it to managers and managed it through the complaints process. Managers completed a full investigation and shared outcomes with the person involved.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff took time to understand and assess each person’s individual circumstances. This included people’s diagnoses, extended support networks, age, needs, wishes and feelings, religion and culture, communication styles and wider personal circumstances. This holistic approach ensured staff delivered care that was personalised and responsive to each person’s unique needs.

The provider employed a diverse workforce, which supported staff to understand and respond appropriately to people from different backgrounds and communities. Managers used a quality impact assessment tool for carers. This identified any additional support or reasonable adjustments staff required and helped ensure staff were supported to deliver inclusive and effective care.

Staff and managers actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and personalised their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider met equality, diversity and human rights requirements. All staff received relevant training to support inclusive and non‑discriminatory practice. Care plans and daily notes showed staff supported people to be active members of their communities. People took part in activities and outings that reflected their individual abilities, interests and age.

Relatives shared positive feedback about staff advocacy and commitment to equitable care. One relative told us, “All the girls (carers) are nothing but strict advocates for (relative), they really care a great deal about (relative).”

Staff recognised and respected people’s cultural and religious needs. A staff member told us that during a review, a person had thanked carers for supporting them during Ramadan. This included adjusting mealtimes to enable them to eat their Iftar meal at the correct time and supporting them to access prayers remotely.

Managers told us they remained flexible with staff rotas to accommodate religious celebrations and observance, where possible.

People were supported, if required, 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.

Due to the complex nature of the care most people received, managers worked closely with people, their families and relevant health professionals to support decision‑making about future care and end‑of‑life planning where appropriate. The provider had a clear policy in place which set out processes for advance and end‑of‑life care planning. This guidance reflected best practice and supported staff to deliver care in a sensitive, coordinated and person‑centred way.