Archived: Stonehaven

Stonehaven provides accommodation for up to 5 people with mental health needs. The aim of the service is to provide people with care and support through a recovery and rehabilitation programme. The service is based in a residential setting within walking distance of local amenities. Accommodation is provided in single bedrooms. At the time of our inspection there were 2 people living in the home.

This was the first inspection of this service.

The registration requirements for the provider stated the home should have a registered manager in place. There was no registered manager in post on the day of our inspection. The previous registered manager had made an application to voluntarily cancel their registration and this was completed on the 17 June 2016. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. A manager had been appointed and was currently processing their application to apply for registration.

People living in the home said they felt safe with the staff who supported them. Staff were described as being very supportive and non-judgemental. There were enough staff on duty and deployed in the home to meet people's care and support needs.

Safeguarding adults’ procedures were good and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. There was a whistle-blowing procedure available and staff said they would use it if they needed to.

People's medicines were managed appropriately and people received their medicines as prescribed by health care professionals. People were supported to manage their medicines safely.

Risk assessments were in place to keep people safe and these were kept under review. Staff had a good understanding of risk management. People were encouraged to live their lives the way they chose and were supported to recognise this should be done in a safe way.

We found the premises to be clean and hygienic and well maintained. Regular health and safety checks were carried out.

Staff had completed an induction when they started work. Further training was planned to address specific topics. This included, drug and alcohol and the recovery star model used to support people in their pathway to recovery.

The manager and staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and acted according to this legislation.

People were encouraged to take control in meeting their nutritional needs. They were involved in menu planning, food preparation and cooking as part of their rehabilitation.

We found staff were respectful to people, attentive to their needs and treated people with kindness and respect in their day to day care. Care plans were written with sensitivity to reflect and to ensure basic rights such as dignity, privacy, choice, and rights were considered at all times. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s individual needs, backgrounds and personalities

People told us they had their privacy respected by all staff and they felt ‘valued’. Each person had an individual care plan that was sufficiently detailed to ensure they were at the centre of their care. These were kept under review.

Confidentiality was a key feature in staff contractual arrangements. This helped to make sure information shared about people was on a need to know basis.

People told us about the type of activities they took part in with staff support. Staff helped people to acquire new skills that would prepare them for independent living and give them confidence.

People were given the opportunity to participate in individual therapy sessions to help them with their rehabilitation and recovery. People were given additional support when they required this. Referrals had been made to the relevant health and social care professionals for advice and support when people’s needs had changed.

People told us they were confident to raise any issue of concern with the manager and staff and that issues they raised would be taken seriously. They had also been encouraged to express their views and opinions of the service through regular meetings, care reviews, and during day to day discussions with staff and management.

People said the management of the service was very good. There were opportunities for people to give formal feedback about the service, the staff and their environment in quality assurance surveys. Recent surveys showed overall good levels of satisfaction with the service provided.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service to ensure people received a good service that supported their health, welfare and safety. We found regular quality audits and checks were completed to ensure any improvements needed within the service were recognised and appropriate action taken.

We recommended policies and procedures were updated to include first aid that had a mental health focus and an admission policy to support future admissions to the service.