Stratton Court

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.

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.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.

People received continuity of care because they received care from a permanent staff team who had time to build their knowledge and understanding of people. The registered manager told us they did not use agency staff and added, “All staff are trained to support people with basic needs, maybe not personal care, but they are trained in how to engage people and dementia, in this way we can re-deploy staff for short bursts during busy times without compromising on ratios." Relatives who wanted to retain a role in their family member’s care were supported to do so. The registered manager gave examples of where relatives continued to support their family members and explained, " We involve relatives as much as possible, in order to know what their relatives would like and not like." The registered manager explained a relative had fed back recently while their family member was in hospital their mail hadn’t been collected, and important letters had been missed. The registered manager explained complaints like those helped improve their service. External health and social care professionals gave mixed feedback about information sharing to ensure people received continuity of care. One healthcare professional told us staff were not responsive in ensuring information was known and accurate. They commented, “We’ve had poor communication between care staff; recommendations not being shared with the whole care team therefore recommendations were followed inconsistently.” Another healthcare professional said, “The nurses are good at chasing up things and they communicate well with us.”

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

People’s individual communication needs were assessed and planned for. People were given information in a format which supported their communication. For example, the activities calendar had pictures to help people understand what was on offer and there were staff pictures located on a wall in the reception area with biographies. Care plans had detailed information on how people chose to communicate and any assessed communication aids they required.

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.

Regular meetings for people and relatives had taken place and were planned. The service had a ‘Resident Committee’ which included several people living at the service and represented the larger population. We found evidence of concerns being raised, the registered manager responded to these and actioned requests. Staff told us they attended meetings, and we saw evidence concerns raised in staff meetings were acknowledged and addressed. There was a complaints file which contained actions taken and lessons learned, and the complaints policy was clear and visible throughout the service.

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

People had equal access to care and support and there were safe levels of staffing deployed throughout the service. During busy periods, ancillary staff were deployed to assist people in communal areas to ensure people were safe. Ancillary staff received additional training in safety, dementia care and infection control to enable them to carry out this function. There were multiple lifts available to ensure accessibility to all areas. Moving and handling equipment was available to ensure people who required it could access care and support when they needed it.

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

People had plans to meet their agreed outcomes, and these were being effectively monitored. Staff had ensured effective communication methods were used when people were struggling to understand. This included instances when menu options were not fully understood and when people had difficulty understanding staff who had strong accents. Records showed how people and their representatives, where appropriate, were included in the development and review of their care plans. People were consulted and listened to about their experiences to ensure their choices were included, this incorporated when people expressed their right to refuse advised care and treatment. For example, one person had been advised to adhere to a specialised diet, but had capacity and decided they did not want the specialised diet. This had been included in their care records and staff were aware of this and recorded all refusals but did not hinder their choice.

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.

Although nobody was receiving end of life care at the time of our assessment, care plans documented people’s wishes and preferences, including cultural needs and traditions. Staff received training in End of Life (EOL) care and most staff had completed this at the time of the inspection. Staff told us, “We are very open and honest, we prioritise dignity. We get the relatives wishes. We have set up a bed in the room so relatives can stay over. We've made reasonable and special adjustments to support families. We use a swan picture and put them on the door to signify when someone is EOL and we have an amazing EOL champion.”