Archived: Stonecroft

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Stonecroft is registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to three people who have a learning disability. It is part of the Thera Trust and provides rolling respite planned care between the hours of 3.30pm to 9.30am Monday to Friday. At the weekends care is provided throughout the day and night. There were two people using the service when we visited.

The service has a registered manager. 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.

Staff had been trained to recognise signs of potential abuse and how to report them. People felt safe staying at the service. There were processes in place to manage identifiable risks. People had risk assessments in place to enable them to maintain their independence.

The provider carried out recruitment checks on new staff to make sure they were fit to work at the service. There were suitable staff employed with the appropriate mix of skills to support people with their needs.

Systems were in place to ensure people were supported to take their medicines safely. If people were able to, they were enabled to self-medicate. Staff were provided with regular training on the safe handling and administration of medicines; and their competencies were assessed on a six monthly basis.

Staff had been provided with induction and ongoing essential training to keep their skills up to date. They were supported with regular supervision and a yearly appraisal from the registered manager.

Staff ensured that people’s consent was gained before providing them with support. People were supported to make decisions about their care and support needs; and this was underpinned by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff had been provided with training and were knowledgeable of the guidance and processes to protect people.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and were able to make choices on what they wished to eat and drink. If needed, people were supported by staff to access healthcare facilities.

Positive and caring relationships had been developed between people and staff. There were processes in place to ensure that people’s views were acted on. Staff provided care and support to people in a meaningful way. Where possible people were encouraged to maintain their independence and staff ensured their privacy and dignity was promoted.

People had support plans that were regularly reviewed to ensure that the care provided was still relevant to their identified needs. A complaints procedure had been developed in an appropriate format to enable people to raise concerns if they needed to.

There was a positive, open and inclusive culture at the service. The registered manager was transparent and visible. This inspired staff to provide a quality service. Effective quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive continuous improvements.

During the inspection, we looked at the care records for two people. We also looked at how people were involved in their care and in the service, the safeguarding of vulnerable adults from abuse records, maintenance of the premises, support and supervision systems and quality assurance checks.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found;

Is the service safe?

Staff had received a range of training to protect people from harm. This included fire safety, hygiene, the safeguarding of vulnerable adults from abuse (SOVA) and the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Staff had undertaken training in behaviour distraction techniques to assist people to be safe during periods of distress. This assured people who used the service that staff had the knowledge to know how to protect them from harm.

During our inspection we assessed how the MCA 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were being implemented. Mental capacity assessments had been completed for two people correctly and in consultation with relevant people to maintain the safety of people who used the service.

The policy, procedures and quality monitoring of the service included health and safety and reviews of people's support. This system was comprehensive and ensured people lived in a safe environment with safe care and support.

We found that the service had suitable arrangements in place to involve people in their support, to promote their independence and to enable them to make choices and decisions about their time at Stonecroft.

Is the service effective?

People's assessments showed that their support was planned and delivered in a way that ensured that their needs were being met. Individualised support meant that people were fully involved in choices and decisions about their lives. This made their support more effective as it enhanced their wellbeing and independence. People were also able to carry on with their usual routine whilst using the service which provided consistency and reassurance whilst they were away from their families.

Is the service caring?

We saw good interaction between the staff member and people who used the service. They were respectful, caring, encouraging and supportive. One relative we spoke with on the telephone said, "The staff are extremely kind and caring, they know my [relative] so well, I trust them completely."

The staff member we spoke with had a good knowledge of people's likes and dislikes, their personalities and aspirations. People told us that the staff treated them respectfully and supported them well. One person said, 'We do a lot here, I don't want to go home.' People's preferences and social history had been recorded in their support plan. People were supported in accordance with their wishes.

Is the service responsive?

Reviews were undertaken of people's support needs at every visit to the service. This ensured that the service kept up to date and responded to people's needs and changing circumstances. We saw that the staff member's approach to supporting people was responsive to their needs and their individual personalities.

Links with other services such as clubs, centres and day time activities in the community ensured that people received their support in a joined up way. One person told us, "I just love it here."

Is the service well-led?

A quality monitoring process was in place. Regular reviews and discussions about people's support were undertaken and they were fully involved in this process.

People were asked their views about the quality of the service and were respected if they didn't want to take part.

Staff training, regular meetings and supervision was provided for all staff. This ensured that information was shared and people's support was coordinated.

The service was well-led as it had all the necessary systems in place to ensure people had a good quality stay at Stonecroft.

We saw evidence from the records we looked at that people received the support they needed to maintain their independence. One relative we spoke with told us: 'The staff are very nice indeed and they really know X.'

Our observations showed us that staff supported people in a patient and sensitive way. During our discussions with staff we found that they had a good understanding and awareness of people's care needs and preferences and they were enthusiastic about providing a good quality of service to people living at the home. One member of staff we spoke with told us: 'We are such a small staff team; we all work really well together.'

The care records we looked at included detailed information on how people's needs were to be met by staff. Staff told us people who visited the home enjoyed their independence and enjoyed going out.

Staff were trained and well supported by the manager so that they could carry out their caring responsibilities effectively. We found that the provider had systems in place to monitor and respond to any complaints received by the home.