Stockingate Residential Home

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The service had care documentation in place that provided important information about people’s likes, preferences and life history. However, the service did not always make sure people were at the centre of decision making regarding their care and treatment. For example, people or relatives were not always asked to be involved in review of their care. We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives regarding being involved in care discussions. One person told us, “If I want anything they [staff] do it for me. I get what I want. I don’t want for anything. You’re not just a person.” However, when asked about being involved in decisions regarding care plans, 1 relative told us, “I’m not aware of anything.” The service has advised us how they will improve communication and decision making for people and their relatives using the service.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service had a good understanding of the needs of individuals they supported, for example, those with dementia and distressed behaviours. Staff had received appropriate training in these areas to support people within the service. The service worked well with local communities and partners such as district nursing and pharmacy teams to meet people’s needs. One professional told us, “I have often found them [staff] positive and friendly to work with.” People and their relatives told us the service involved the right services to ensure joined up care. One person told us, “A GP comes to the home.”

The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service offered people a welcome pack when moving into the service. However, the service did not always provide people with sufficient information which were tailored to individual’s needs and to meet accessible Information standards. There was a lack of safeguarding and complaints information available to enable people to raise concerns about their care. People were not always provided information to support their independence and wellbeing. The service did not have appropriate information to support people to orientate themselves around the service, this is particularly important for the main client group at this service, which was primarily people living with dementia. We received mixed feedback from people and relatives regarding information they were provided. For example, 1 relative told us, “The manager doesn’t communicate with us.” However, another relative told us, “They [staff] communicate a lot with us [relative].” The service has advised us of how they will improve on providing information.

The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The service held staff and residents’ meetings as well as advising there was a regular review of people’s care. Staff advised us there were regular staff meetings in which staff were listened to and involved in care. However, some staff questioned how effective these forms of feedback were. One staff told us, “It changes for a short while, then goes back to how it was before.” Staff and leaders told us people were often not consulted in reviews. There was no process in which people were able to give feedback regarding specific aspects of their care. People and relatives provided mixed feedback regarding whether they were listened to or involved in care planning. One relative told us, “I don’t get to know anything.” Another relative advised us, “We had a review a few weeks ago.” The service has advised us how they will improve on ensuring people are listened to and involved in aspects of the service.

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

The service worked with external agencies to seek relevant support for people. For example, district nursing and GP practice. Staff had regular weekly meetings with the GP practice to discuss all people within the service, so any concerns could be quickly highlighted and the correct support given. The service worked well to ensure any immediate changes were implemented by involving the right external professionals. For example, a person required an immediate change to their medication due to associated risks highlighted. Staff made swift contact with the pharmacy to ensure the right medication was in place. One professional told us, “They [the service] work really well with us. If they have any concerns about the residents, they ring us straight away.”

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

The service had an equality and diversity policy in place as well as relevant tools to support people to have tailored care. Communication needs were highlighted within people’s care plans. However, accessible information was not always provided to those who may be at greater risk of inequality under The Equality Act (2010). For example, there were people within the service who had communication needs. There were pictorial menus and flash cards available for staff to use to support people to make decisions, however, these were not utilised. Staff were not proactive in promoting communication with people who had communication difficulties. Any attempts to promote communication with people who required additional support, were not documented. We received positive feedback from people regarding people’s individual needs being met. One relative told us, “Care is adapted to meet individual needs.” The service has advised us on how they plan to improve on providing equity in experiences and outcomes for people.

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.

There was appropriate documentation in place to support people with important life decisions. For example, there were end of life care plans in place for people which detailed important information on how people wished to be cared for. For example, whether they wish to be cared for at home or treated in hospital. Staff had received palliative and end of life training and demonstrated a good understanding of supporting people going through the end stages of life. When asked what good end of life care meant to them, 1 staff member told us, “To give as much compassion as you have.”