We carried out a review of the data available to us about Stockwood House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Stockwood House, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
• There was clear signage to advise people, relatives and staff of current guidance and procedures for reducing the risks of COVID-19.
• People were supported to arrange for friends and relatives to visit the home in a designated visiting area. Visits outside the home to family and friends was also encouraged.
• Full Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was available to all staff and visitors on entry to the home and they were asked to show proof of a negative lateral flow test.
• Staff were observed to be wearing PPE correctly at all times.
• Procedures were in place to ensure facilities could be separated in the event of an outbreak of COVID-19. .
• The staff team worked closely with health and social care professionals to ensure any health needs in relation to preventing infection could be met.
• The staff team had received training from the local Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) nurse on COVID-19, PPE and IPC measures.
• The home had cleaning schedules in place and the premises and furniture all looked clean and tidy at all times.
Stockwood House is a care home which provides care and support for up to six people with eating disorders. The service is one of a few specialist care homes of its kind across the country. At the time of the inspection, the service was supporting five people. Three people were present on the day of the inspection and two were away on planned leave.
People's experience of using this service:
We received extremely positive feedback about the service and the care people received. People and professionals commented positively about the effectiveness and responsiveness of the support people received. There was evidence people achieved good care outcomes and their comments about the service supported this. People and professionals’ comments about the service were beautifully summarised in an email to the provider by a professional. They said, “I just wanted to let you know that I just had the most joyful telephone conversation with [person]. I want to thank you for the work that you are doing with [person] and I wanted to let you know that [person] clearly appreciates the opportunity to work towards recovery with you.”
The service met the characteristics of Outstanding rating in effective and responsive. Safe, caring and well-led were rated good.
People were protected from harm by staff who were trained to identify and report concerns. People were safe because potential risks to their health and wellbeing had been managed well. There were enough staff to support people safely. People were supported to take their medicines. Lessons were learnt from incidents to prevent recurrence. Staff followed effective processes to prevent the spread of infections.
The provider worked extremely hard to ensure people received effective care to meet their needs. People were supported by very skilled and knowledgeable staff who had completed the provider's mandatory training and additional training in relevant areas. The provider invested in having a highly skilled team, who supported people to meet their holistic needs. Staff practice was supported by good practice guidance and research. People achieved good care outcomes as a result of the support provided by the service.
Staff had respectful, caring and friendly relationships with people they supported. Staff upheld people's dignity and privacy, and they promoted their independence.
People received exceptionally personalised care and support which met their needs, reflected their
preferences and promoted their wellbeing. People felt they mattered and the service helped them to overcome their illnesses, as well as, to develop in other areas of their lives too.
There was a positive, open and empowering culture. Staff roles and responsibilities were clear, and staff were supported and encouraged to use creative and individualised methods to support people to achieve their personal goals. People were very proud of their achievements and were looking forward to a better future. The provider’s quality monitoring processes had greatly improved and they now evidenced more what they did to continually improve the service.
Rating at last inspection:
The last rating for this service was good (published 28 February 2017).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
The service provides specialist support and treatment for up to six people living with eating disorders. Some of the people receive care and treatment within the frameworks of the Care Programme Approach (CPA) and Community Treatment Orders (CTO) of the Mental Health Act 2007. There were four people being supported by the service at the time of this inspection.
During our inspection of the service in September 2015, we found the provider did not always have safe recruitment processes in place and they did not have a system to enable them to continuously assess and monitor the quality of the service. Additionally, robust records had not always been kept in relation to staff supervision and training. We checked these areas during this inspection and we found they had made the required improvements.
There was a registered manager in post, who was also the provider of the service. 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.
People were safe because there were risk assessments in place that gave guidance to staff on how potential risks to people’s health and wellbeing could be minimised. There were systems in place to safeguard people and staff knew what to do if they suspected that a person was at risk of harm. The provider now had safe recruitment processes in place and there was sufficient staff to support people safely. People were supported to take their medicines safely.
There was now evidence that staff received regular supervision and they had been trained to meet people’s individual needs. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to provide people’s care and treatment as set out by the Care Programme Approach (CPA) and Community Treatment Orders (CTO). Everyone supported by the service had mental capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment and therefore, the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were not applicable.
People were supported by staff who were kind and caring, and their privacy and dignity was promoted. People were supported to meet their nutrition needs in a sensitive way and in accordance with their treatment plans. They had access to other healthcare services when required to maintain their health and wellbeing.
People had care and treatment plans that took account of their individual needs, preferences, and choices. They were fully involved in planning and reviewing their care, and were supported to manage their health conditions. People were supported to pursue their hobbies and interests, and were able to pursue a variety of activities outside of the home without staff supervision.
The provider had a system for handling complaints and concerns. They sought feedback from people and commissioners of the service in order to improve the quality of the service. The provider’s quality monitoring processes to enable them to assess and monitor the quality of the service had improved. However, they did not always keep robust records in relation to people’s medicines and staff recruitment processes.
We carried out an unannounced inspection on 28 September 2015.
The service provides specialist support and treatment for up to six people living with eating disorders. Some of the people receive care and treatment under the Care Programme Approach (CPA) and Community Treatment Orders (CTO), of the Mental Health Act 2007. There were five people being supported by the service at the time of this inspection and one person was in hospital.
There is a registered manager in post, who is also the provider of the service. 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.
The provider did not always have effective recruitment processes in place and this put people at risk of being supported by staff who might not be suitable.
People were safe and the provider had effective systems in place to safeguard them.
There were risk assessments in place that gave guidance to the staff on how risks to people could be minimised.
People were supported to manage their medicines safely.
There was enough skilled and experienced staff to support people safely.
The manager and the nurses understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to the care and treatment of people under the Care Programme Approach (CPA) and Community Treatment Orders (CTO).
Staff had received supervision and support that enabled them to support people appropriately, but this was not always clearly recorded.
People were supported to have nutritious food and drinks in order to maintain their health and wellbeing. They were also supported to access other health and social care services when required.
People were supported by staff who were compassionate and sensitive to their individual needs. Staff had received effective training so that they were able to understand people’s complex needs.
People’s needs had been assessed, and care plans took account of their individual needs, preferences, and choices. They were fully involved in planning their care and were supported to manage their health conditions.
People were supported to pursue their hobbies and interests, including acquiring qualifications.
The provider had a formal process for handling complaints and concerns. They encouraged feedback from people, their representatives, and health and social care professionals. They acted on the comments received to continuously improve the quality of the service.
The registered manager provided stable leadership, clinical expertise and managerial oversight. They encouraged staff to contribute to the development of the service.
The provider did not always evidence that they continually assessed the quality of the service provided.
The person we spoke with told us staff were kind, caring, and helpful and provided them with care that made them feel safe. Staff we spoke with were aware of the safeguarding policy and protocols they should follow.
We walked around the home to review the environment. We observed that all internal areas were clean, well decorated and in a good state of repair. We saw records of cleaning and maintenance tasks to be completed on each night shift, which were handed in at handover.
We looked at the recruitment records for four staff who worked at Stockwood House. We noted that personal files were well organised. They contained documentation which provided a clear audit trail which demonstrated that appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff commenced employment. People were made aware of the complaints system. Staff told us that they took all concerns seriously. The person we spoke with told us they knew how to raise a concern or complaint and said, 'If I'm unhappy about anything I feel I would be listened to.'
People living at the service told us that they were involved in their care planning and the way things happen in the home. They said "We have weekly meetings where we can raise things. They are quite proactive."
We found that there was a system in place to support people with managing their medication and all the people using the service were able to manage their medication independently.
The staff employed by the service told us they felt supported in their job role and were able to access training to keep their skills up to date. They had the opportunity to review their skills in one to one supervision sessions and took part in staff meetings.
We saw that the provider had a system in place to review the quality of the service provided and there was a policy for people to raise concerns and complaints. People living at the service knew how to complain and one person living there said "I sent a letter and they acknowledged it telling me how they would deal with it."