Stockingate Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Initial assessments were completed within the service. However, there was a lack of sufficient relevant or recent information pertaining to people’s health and care needs. For example, changes in dietary requirements for those at nutritional risk. People who required modified food or drink as part of their diet, did not always have the appropriate documentation in place to manage nutritional and hydrational risk. Staff handover documentation also lacked important information for staff to support people to assess or monitor the needs of people they supported. There could therefore not be an appropriate ongoing assessment of need for people as there was at times, incorrect information in documentation. The service has advised us how they plan to improve the assessment of need within the service, having already implemented some changes.

The service did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

There was a significant lack of relevant information pertaining to people’s care and treatment in care documentation, for example, for those who presented with behaviours that challenge. Staff did not always utilise relevant tools to document or review behaviours, to deliver evidence-based care to people. We observed there to be a significant lack of activities within the service. We reviewed documentation regarding activities with people and found these to be limited. People and their relatives told us there was a lack of activities within the service. One relative told us, “They [people] need a lot of activities. There was a lot when relative moved in but not so good now.” Another relative told us “[My relative] is in bed with no telly. Doesn’t leave the home. Not enough staff to go outside.” The service has advised us on how they plan to make improvements to delivering evidence-based care, having already implemented some positive changes.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The service worked well with staff teams and local services to support people. We observed good staff deployment and teamwork. Most professionals told us the staff worked well with them to meet the needs of people. One professional told us, “[The service] has really good communication.” Staff told us the staff teams work well together to support people. One staff member told us, “I get on with all the staff, we feel like a family.” People and their relatives told us that staff work well together. One person told us, “There is a consistent group of staff.”

The service did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

There was a lack of relevant and up to date information pertaining to people’s care needs. For example, in relation to monitoring of weight. People who were at nutritional risk, did not always have appropriate documentation to support monitoring and oversight of weight. Staff also did not always record people’s food or dietary intake. However, professionals did advise the service largely worked well with them to support people to live healthier lives. One professional told us, “If a resident has a skin tear, they [staff] contact us quickly, they are quick on the ball to ring us.” One relative told us, “[My relative] eats ok, weight is consistent.” The service has advised us how they will make improvements to support people to live healthier lives.

The service did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service completed regular audits of care planning documentation. This was completed both by senior staff and leaders of the service. However, audits did not identify issues with contemporaneous records regarding weight management, skin integrity and diet modifications required for people. The service therefore could not routinely monitor people’s care and treatment effectively to ensure positive outcomes for people. People and their relatives provided mixed feedback as to whether they were involved in the monitoring of outcomes. The service advised us how they plan they plan to improve the monitoring and improvement of people’s outcomes.

The service did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

The service had consent and mental capacity assessment documentation in place regarding decisions relating to people’s care and treatment. We observed staff ask consent from people before being supported with care. However, staff were observed to take videos and photos on personal devices, without appropriate consent in place from people or their relatives. Staff had a good understanding of the MCA, however, there was a lack of evidence staff had relevant training in this area. Regarding staff’s understanding of MCA, 1 staff member told us, “It means we should always assume a resident has capacity.” Consent in relation to best interest decisions were not always followed, for example in relation to covert medicines. One professional told us, “Covert medicines they [the service] have a lack of understanding.” People and their relatives told us they are asked for consent to care. One relative told us, “[My relative] chooses. Staff don’t force.” The service has advised us how they will make improvements regarding consent to care and treatment.